Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners including the order dated 11th June 1985 by which the Special Judge, (under The E.C. Act), Patna has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them in Special Case No. 41 of 1983 arising out of Digha (Pataliputra) P.S. case No. 133 of 1983 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this application may be briefly stated. Mis. Kalyanpur Cement Stores, Gosain Tola, Patna is a Firm having licence under the provisions of Bihar Cement Control Order 1972 bearing Licence No. 33 of 1982. Petitioner No.1 is the proprietor and petitioner No.2 is the Munshi of the said Firm. The Executive Magistrate, in-charge, Patna inspected the business premises of the petitioner Firm on 19-5-1983 and found that there was no display of stocks and price of cement and on verification of the stocks as compared to the stock register and cash memo, 86 bags of cement were found short and, therefore, a First Information Report was lodged by the Executive Magistrate, In-charge at Digha (Pataliputra) Police Station on the basis of which, the present case under Sec. 7 of the Act was instituted against these petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Display Order) as well as for contravention of terms of licence with regard to the maintenance of correct stock register. After usual investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and thereafter cognizance of the case was taken against the petitioners by order dated 15-1-1985 under Sec. 7 of the Act. Petitioner Satyendra Kumar Sing came before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 3605 of 1985 challenging the order dated 15-1-1985 taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 7 of the Act by the Special Judge, Patna on two grounds. Firstly that there was no prior sanction for prosecution as required under Clause 6 of the Display Order and secondly the prosecution was barred under Sec. 468 of the Code. No. 3605 of 1985 challenging the order dated 15-1-1985 taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 7 of the Act by the Special Judge, Patna on two grounds. Firstly that there was no prior sanction for prosecution as required under Clause 6 of the Display Order and secondly the prosecution was barred under Sec. 468 of the Code. The said criminal Miscellaneous case was dismissed by a single Judge of this Court on 10-5-1985 with observation that if the petitioner raises these points within two weeks from the date of order in the trial court, the learned Special Judge will consider those points and pass orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, a petition was filed on 17-5-1985 on behalf of the petitioners before the Special Judge praying therein for their discharge in the case on these two grounds. The learned Special Judge, by his order dated 11-6-1985, rejected the said petition. Thereafter, the present application has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the prosecution version of the case mainly on two grounds stated above. The learned trial court, while disposing of the first ground taken on behalf of petitioners regarding lack of sanction as required by Clause 6 of the Display Order has held that condition No.8 of the licence required the petitioners to display prices, besides their obligation to do so under the Display Order and as no sanction was required for the prosecution for violation of the condition No.8 of the licence, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot be dropped merely on the ground that for prosecution for contravention of the Display Order, no sanction had been taken. But the trial court has missed that condition No.8 of the licence only requires display of prices, whereas Clause 6 of the Display Order requires display of stock as well as prices; and in the present case there is accusation that there was no display of stock and prices on the board of the Firm. 4. But the trial court has missed that condition No.8 of the licence only requires display of prices, whereas Clause 6 of the Display Order requires display of stock as well as prices; and in the present case there is accusation that there was no display of stock and prices on the board of the Firm. 4. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if on the facts of the case, the petitioners contravene condition No.8 of the licence as well as the provisions of the Display Order and their prosecution under Display Order cannot proceed as sanction has not been taken for the same, their prosecution for contravention of condition No.8 of the licence cannot be allowed to proceed and the entire prosecution has to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision by a single Judge of this Court in Ram Bilas Sah V/s. The State of Bihar. The principles laid down in this decision fully support the contention of the learned counsel. In that case, accused had been prosecuted under Sec. 7 of the Act for infringement of both the Display Order as well as Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1967 and it was submitted on behalf of the State in that case that the prosecution can well proceed so far the prosecution for infringement of Foodgrains Order was concerned even though the prosecution under the Display order could not proceed for lack of prior sanction. But it was held that to permit the prosecution to continue for the contravention of Foodgrains Order only, would mean circumvention of the provisions of the Display Order which requires prior sanction of the prosecution. 5. A similar view was taken by a single Judge of this Court in K.P. Sinha V/s. Aftabuddin, wherein it has been held that where the facts mentioned in the complaint give rise to two offences one of which required either a complaint by the Court concerned or a sanction by the prescribed authority, the prosecution cannot be started under the Section which did not require any complaint by the Court or sanction necessary in law for taking cognizance of the case and thus, evade the provisions of sanction and on this ground, the trial was held to be without jurisdiction. 6. 6. In the present case, for the prosecution for contravention of the Display Order, previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of other authorities mentioned in proviso to Clause 6 of the Display Order is required which has admittedly not been obtained. Hence, on this ground alone, the prosecution of the petitioners in the present case is fit to be quashed. 7. Next it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that another charge against the petitioners is that the stock register of the Firm showed 370 bags of cement in stock but the cash memo of the Firm indicated sale of 5 bags of cement on that day and thus, there should have been 365 bags of cement; but on actual verification, only 279 bags of cement were found in stock. Thus, there was shortage of 86 bags of cement and thus, the stock register and the cash memo of the Firm were not properly maintained by the petitioners Firm and these offences are covered by provisions of clause (1) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year under Sec. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act for which cognizance could be taken within a year of the alleged date of occurrence. But in the present case, the date of occurrence is 19-6-1983 and the cognizance of the case was taken on 15-1-1985, i.e. after more than a year after the alleged date of occurrence and on this ground also, the prosecution of the petitioners is fit to be quashed. The learned Special Judge has not accepted this ground taken on behalf of the petitioners stating that shortage of 86 bags of cements leads to an inference that it had been sold in black marketing in violation of the conditions of licence and, therefore, Sec. 3(2)(d) of the Act read with Sec. 7 of the. Act will apply which provides for punishment upto seven years and, thus, the cognizance was not barred under Sec. 468 of the Code. The trial court has erred in holding so on the basis of inference. On specific allegations in the complaint petition, there has been violation of Sec. 3(2)(i) of the Act which is punishable for a term which may extend to one year. 8. The trial court has erred in holding so on the basis of inference. On specific allegations in the complaint petition, there has been violation of Sec. 3(2)(i) of the Act which is punishable for a term which may extend to one year. 8. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of this Court in Jhopri Sao mid others V/s. State of Bihar and in Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Prasad Sao V/s. The State of Bihar wherein it has been held that failure to maintain accounts books and receipt books properly as required under the conditions of the licence is covered by order under Sec. 3(2)(i) of the Act and the defecting Licensee is punishable under Sec. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. In the present case, admittedly, the cognizance of the case was taken after more than a year from the date of occurrence and, thus, it was barred by time. 9. For these reasons, I find that the prosecution of these petitioners is bad in law and it cannot be sustained. 10. I accordingly allow this application, quash the entire prosecution against these petitioners, including the order dated 11th June 1985 passed by the Special Judge Patna in Special Case No.41 of 1983 arising out of Digha (Pataliputra) P.S. Case No. 133 of 1983.