ORDER (By Court) An amendment petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners bringing some facts that during the pendency of the writ application confiscation proceeding was initiated, by the Collector, Vaishali, and an order, as contained in Annexure 4 to this amendment petition, was passed. Let it be kept on the record and be treated as part of the main application. 2. This application has been placed under the heading 'For Orders' at the instance of the petitioners. 3. Vide order dated 23.8.90 State Counsel was asked to seek instruction in the matter so that this petition might be disposed of at the admission stage itself but Mr. Mathur appearing on behalf of the State did not receive any instruction till date. 4. Prima facie it appears that the entire prosecution launched against the petitioners is illegal and without any legal foundation for the reasons stated hereinafter. 5. From the statements made in this petition it appears that one truck bearing no. BHQ 8235 loaded with 120 bags of rice was intercepted by the Officer-in-Charge, Bhagwanpur Police Station on 17.8.90 at about 5 p.m. and a seizure list was prepared as contained in Annexure I to this application. Thereafter a case was launched against the petitioners with an allegation that there has been alleged contravention of Bihar Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 and State Governments Notification No. 12084 S. C. dated 30.6.66. 6. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that vide Annexure 3 the aforesaid Bihar Foodgrain (Movement Control) Order, 1957 was rescinded. Therefore, no case has been made out against the petitioners at all. 7. It is relevant to quote the Notification No. S. O. 696(E) dated the 30th Sept. 1977 which reads that in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Central Government hereby rescinds with effect from the 1st day of October, 1977, the order issued by it as specified in Schedule A. We are not concerned with other Orders as mentioned in the aforesaid Notification for the purpose of disposing of this application. We find that the aforesaid Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 is item no. 4 of Schedule A of the said Notification as contained in Annexure 3 to this application. 8. Mr. We find that the aforesaid Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 is item no. 4 of Schedule A of the said Notification as contained in Annexure 3 to this application. 8. Mr. Mathur appearing on behalf of the State could not be able to controvert this proposition of law. 9. It is painful to note that the authorities who are the custodians of law and order are not acquainted with the latest position of law. The said Movement Control Order for the violation of which the petitioner has been put to harassment, was rescinded as far back as on 30th September, 1997. In that view of the matter the entire prosecution seems to be without any legal foundation and it is fit to be quashed at this stage. 10. In this connection we may also refer to a decision in the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and ors (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1947) where the Supreme Court has said that where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and suffers from fundamental legal defects the High Court can quash the proceedings even at the initial stage. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the entire prosecution suffers from legal infirmities und the same is fit to be quashed. Even the learned Collector in his confiscation order, as contained in Annexure 4, has observed that he was not in a position to appreciate as to how the prosecution has been launched against the petitioners. 11. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also drawn our attention to the amendment petition that after the filing of this writ petition, it appears, confiscation proceeding was also initiated against the petitioners in which show cause notice was issued but the Collector also passed the interim order for selling the rice and depositing the sale proceeds in the Government Treasury. 12. Since we have held that the entire prosecution and seizure are illegal and they are fit to be quashed, the entire confiscation proceeding is misconceived and fit to be quashed. Accordingly after hearing the parties we allow the application and quash the entire criminal case as well as the confiscation proceeding mentioned above. 13. Let the articles be handed over to the petitioners to be sold to the consumers at the market rate.