Judgment N.PANDEY, J. 1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated 2-5-1985 where under the Special Judge (under the E.C. Act), Purnea, has taken cognizance under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Farbesganj P.S. Case No. 95 dated 3-5-1984 (giving rise to Special Case No. 34 of 1984). 2. The petitioner is a licensee retail dealer under the provisions of the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956. On 9-3-1984 while the petitioner was out of station, the Supply Inspector, Acaria along with other officials of the Supply Department held inspection of the business premises. The father of the petitioner, who was present at the time of inspection, informed the authorities that he had no knowledge of the relevant records and other affairs. The stock of coal was seized and an F.I.R. was lodged by the Supply Inspectoral lodging therein that at the time of inspection, the display board did not contain the prices and stock position. The stock register and cash memo were not produced. In the first information report, it was alleged that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of clause 1 (3) read with clause 32 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 stands repealed with effect from 19-4-1984. The alleged occurrence in the present case took place on 3-5-1984, therefore, there could have been no violation of any of the provisions of the repealed coal control order and in that view of the matter, no prosecution could have been launched for any violation thereof or the terms and conditions of the licence issued there under. The relevant provisions of clause 32 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 read, thus: "From the date of commencement of this order, the licensing order mentioned in Schedule III shall stand repealed (xxx) and the provisions of this order shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the licences repealed by this sub-clause". From the bare reference of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Licensing Order mentioned in Schedule-III stand repealed. From the bare reference of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Licensing Order mentioned in Schedule-III stand repealed. Schedule-III of the Unification Order contains the list of the orders repealed and at item No.4 of the list, the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 has been mentioned, 4. It has further been submitted that till the date of inspection, the State Government had not issued any notification fixing the storage limit of coal for retail dealer. Therefore, the "Unification Order" had no application and as such there could be no violation of any provision of the "Unification Order" as well. 5. It could not be denied by the learned Counsel for the State that at the relevant time, the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 stands repealed. The coal has been define in clause (b) of Sec. 2 of the unification order and retail dealer has been defined in clause (P) of the same Section. Under Clause 2 (P) the definition of retail dealer is as follows: "Retail dealer means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of any article for purpose other than personal consumption within the storage limit fixed by the Government from time to time." The definition itself indicates that for a retail dealer the State Government was required to fix storage limit of the article in question from time to time. It is apparent from the provision of the Unification Order that no storage limit was fixed for coal when it was introduced. The State Government for the first time vide its notification G.S.R. 49 dt. 17th October, 1985 fixed the storage limit. 6 It has been submitted that in between 19-4-1984 to 17-10-1985, there was no notification by the State Government, fixing storage limit of whole sale dealer or retail dealer. Therefore, the liability to comply with the provisions of the Unification Order remains undetermined and thus no prosecution could have been instituted even for violation of any of the provisions of the Unification Order. This has been clearly laid down by this Court in the case of Rajesh Trading Company V/s. The State of Bihar and others that the "Unification Order" docs not apply in such case where no notification fixing the storage limit has been issued. This has been clearly laid down by this Court in the case of Rajesh Trading Company V/s. The State of Bihar and others that the "Unification Order" docs not apply in such case where no notification fixing the storage limit has been issued. Therefore, in my view, if on the day of occurrence there was no notification under the Unification Order, the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the alleged offence. If there has been failure on the part of the State to issue notification, fixing storage limit and other conditions for a retail dealer, with respect to the articles sought to be covered by the Unification Order, then such failure would mean that the Unification Order had no application on the day of occurrence. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court decided in case of Smt. Geeta Devi V/s. The State of Bihar. 7. Considering the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of law, as indicated above, I find sufficient force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Order taking cognizance, in the back ground of the aforesaid lacuna, becomes illegal and fit to be quashed. 8. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Supply Inspector has also made allegation that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and stocks) Order, 1977. In connection with the aforesaid allegation, it has been submitted that as per the mandatory provisions of the proviso to clause 6 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and stocks) Order, 1977, no sanction has been obtained by the prosecution from any competent authority, for launching prosecution for violation of any of the provisions of the Display Order and on this account also the prosecution of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and consequent thereto the order taking cognizance is bad in law. 9. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, it has been also submitted that no irregularity, whatsoever at the time of inspection, was found. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of inspection and, therefore, the documents could not be produced. In other words, the element of mens rea is totally lacking in the present case. It is not necessary to go into this question and pass any order in respect thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of inspection and, therefore, the documents could not be produced. In other words, the element of mens rea is totally lacking in the present case. It is not necessary to go into this question and pass any order in respect thereof. As already observed, the prosecution and the order taking cognizance being illegal and unsustainable on account of the [act that on the day of occurrence, the Coal Control Order was already repealed and no notification fixing the storage limit and other conditions with respect to the articles, sought to becovered by Unification Order, was issued. The launching of prosecution was illegal ab initio. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is quashed.