Judgment SHAMIMUL HODA, J. 1. The petitioner who is a dealer of Foodgrain having licence No. 51/85, has filed this application under Section 482 of thei Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order, dated 29-8-1990 by which the learned Special Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The allegation against the petitioner, as disclosed in the F. I. R. is that on 5-8-1990 while the Offlcer-in-chargge of Chaibasa (Muffasil) Police Station was returning to the police station after investigation of another case, he saw truck No. OAS 261 near village Chaghri loaded with rice. On demand the driver produced two cash memos issued by M/s. Makhanlal Shyam Sunder of Chaibasa in favour of Rajendra Prasad of Kharasawan and Ramautar Satyanarain of Kuchoi showing sale of 50 bags of rice to each. It is lleged that thereafter the informant inspected the business premises of the petitioner and verified the duplicate cash memo wherein certain discrepancies have been found such as in original it was written Rajendra Prasad of Kharsawangarh whereas in the duplicate it was found as Rajendra Prasad of Kharsawan. There was also another discrepancy with regard to the price. In the original it was written 19, 425/- whereas in the carbon copy it was mentioned Rs. 1,94,225/- The further allegation is that on the verification of the stock register if was found that it was not verified and authenticated by the Supply Inspector. It was also noticed that the rice which was received on that date by truck No. OAS 241 and OAS 4078 were not mentioned in the stock register On these allegations, First Information Report was lodged. After invests gation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and the driver of the truck under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 3. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance as mentioned above. 4. Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has sub-mitted that the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute any offence under the Essenial Commodities Act. 3. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance as mentioned above. 4. Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has sub-mitted that the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute any offence under the Essenial Commodities Act. He has further submitted that on the date of alleged occurrence there was no storage limit nor there was any restriction on movement of rice from one State to another as rice is a free sale commodity and as such there was no violation of the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order, 1984 (herein after referred to as the 1984 order). It has been further submitted that no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for violation of any provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display and Price Stcck) order, 1977 has been obtained. So far the allegation of entry of the stock in the register, it, has been submitted that the dealer is not required to maintain minute to minute account of the business transaction and is required only to indicate the opening stock and is further required to strike cut balance after making entries of receipt and sales at the close of the business. It has been further submitted that under the terms and conditions of the licence the stock register is not required to be authenticated and/or verified by a Supply Inspector nor there is allegation that at any point of time petitioner was directed by the competent authority to get his stock register authenticated. 5. Learned Counsel for the state stated that these are question of facts which are he ascertained at the trial stage. 6. Under the 1984 order, the Government of Bihar for the first time fixed storage limit by G. S. R. 49, dated 17-10-1985. This notification was subsequently amended by G. S. R. 57, dated 10-11-1986 by which the restriction of stock limit on wheet and rice was removed. There was further amendment by G. S. R. 42, dated 21-11-1987 by which again the storage limit for rice was provided. This amended notification was quashed by this High Court in the case of Aditya Flour Mills (P) Ltd., & 3 others v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 PLJR 143. Subsequently, storage limit has been fixed by the State Government on 23-8-1990. This amended notification was quashed by this High Court in the case of Aditya Flour Mills (P) Ltd., & 3 others v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 PLJR 143. Subsequently, storage limit has been fixed by the State Government on 23-8-1990. In the present case the occurrence is said to have taken place on 5-6-1990 and as such there was no storage limit after quashing the notification No. GSR 42, dated 21-11-1987. The fixation of storage limit is a sine-qua-non for the appllcation of licensing provisions under the 1984 order. There being no storage limit on the relevant date, the provision of 1984 order was not workable and as such there can be no prosecution for violation of 1984 order. 7. Even under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display and Price Stock) order, 1977, there can be no prosecution against the petitioner for violating of any provisions of the said order. Proviso to Clause 6 of the said order provides that no prosecution shall lie against any person for controvention of any of the provision of this order unless the same has been sanctioned by the District Magistrate or Special Officer In-Ccharge rationing or Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Sub-divisional Magistrate within the limit of local jurisdiction. In the present case, from the record, it appears that no sanction was obtained. So far the descripancies in the original cash memo and its duplicate are concerned, there are not of such a nature which would attract any of the Penal provision. 8. Having head the parties, I am of the view that no offence is made out against the petitioner. 9. In the result, the application is allowed and the order, dated 29-8-1990 taking cognizance is hereby set aside so far the petitioner is concerned.