Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, this application has been finally heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order of taking cognizance, dated 27-8-1991 passed against the petitioner by the Special Judge. (E. C. Act, Chaibasa) in connection with Adityapur P. S. case Nos. 27/91, dated 26-2-91 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25-2-91 at about 10 P.M. in the night the Additional District Supply Officer, Seraikella, with the assistance of the Supply Inspector and the Police Officials, sealed the business premises as also the two godown of petitioner No. 1 run in the name and style of M/s. Rani Sati Oil Stoore at Samarhia. On the following day i.e. on 20-2091 the business premises were inspected and irregularities were detected. It was found that no paper was produced althaugh the raiding party found two stock registers and four cash memorandom the display Board written upto 25-2-91. All arrivals of goods were neither noted on the display board nor in the stock register. Arrivals of purses and its disposal, on verification, were found to be correct. Fortnightly return was not submitted. The quantity found in the stock was in excess of it. The goods were found stored in an unauthorised godown. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid irregulai hies, which, according to the prosecution contravene certain provisions of the Unification Order 1984. F.I.R. Annexure 1 was lodged before the police, The police took up investigaion and ultimately submitted charge-sheet v ide Annexure 2. Thereafter the Magistrate passed the impugned order of taking cognizance vide Annexure 3. 5. Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submited that on admitted fact no case is made out as, in fact, there was no contravention of the provisions of the Unification Order. which is not applicable in this case. The facts- of this case are entirely covered by a catena of decisions given by this Court and therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. 6. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Mr. Laljee Sanay. which is not applicable in this case. The facts- of this case are entirely covered by a catena of decisions given by this Court and therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. 6. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Mr. Laljee Sanay. learned A. P. P. submitted that in sine oi taking steps he could not get any instruction in the matter. But, however, he attempted, to support the allegation but could not reply to the arguments. 7. Undisputed, and admitted facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is carrying on business in the name, and style of M/s. Rani Sati Oil Store at Gamarhia within the subdivision of Seraikella in the district of Singhbhum. He is the wholesale dealer having licence No. 22.37. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Munshis of petitioner No. 1. Even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted to be true, still it appears that no case is admittedly made out. The first allegation which appears to be a major one in this case is that the petitioner was running business in an unauthorised godown. This allegation stands exploded on the admitted fact that the petitioner had intimated to the authorities concerned, vide Annexure 5 series, that he had opened a godown to stock the edible oil and other foodgrains for which it appears that petitioner No. 2 also intimated that authorities vide Annexure 8 which is available in the supplementary affidavit. 8. Under the provisions or the Unification Order the petitioner is required only to intimate, by letters, to the authorities concerned about his intention to keep the foodgrains in the new godown and it is permissible for him to do so in view of the Circular, dated 13-10-69. Similar is the situation here in this case also-. On admitted facts the petitioner had given intimation to the authorities concerned regarding the opening of the new godown. It is not necessary for the petitioner to wait for the reply from the authorities. In this view of the fact, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence. 9. So far the storage limit is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner was found, to have stored some excess quantity of edible oils. It is not necessary for the petitioner to wait for the reply from the authorities. In this view of the fact, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence. 9. So far the storage limit is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner was found, to have stored some excess quantity of edible oils. In this connection the case of the petitioner is that he had an opening stock of 175 tins of mustard oil and 4648 tins of edible oil and non-edible oil was the receipt of the day making a total of 4823 tins. The sale made on 25-2-91 was found to of 383 tins. It has been alleged that 4451 tins were found meaning thereby that 11 tins were found in excess of the stock. This difference, according to the submissions, was due to counting mistake as the inspection had started at 10.30 A.M. and the seizure was made on 12.15 noon from three places containing edible oils, non-edible oils and pulses. This appears to be a bona fide mistake specially when no stock limit has been fixed for non-edible oils under the terms and conditions of the licence issued under the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock) Order, 1977 (in short the Display Order). A dealer is required only to display on the Board, his opening stock of the day and likewise, the stock register is also to be shown. Minute to minute sale is not required to be entered in the stock register. Similarly, the arrival of the day cannot be entered minute to minute. It is required to be entered at the close of the business hours. The law requires that the stock position should be shown on the opening day and; at the close of the business hours. It is also the admitted position in this case that the stock registers and the cash memos were shown. Raid was conducted in the night and then seizure was made. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to complete the stock position in respect of the opening position on the following day. In this view of the matter also, there could not have been correct display in the stock position. 10. So far item of pulses are concerned, it is the admitted position even in the F.I.R. that on verification everything was found correct. In this view of the matter also, there could not have been correct display in the stock position. 10. So far item of pulses are concerned, it is the admitted position even in the F.I.R. that on verification everything was found correct. With regard to the allegation of non-submission of fortnightly returns, it is the admitted position that under Clause 20 of the Unification Order, 1984, the dealers are required to furnish returns in form D to such authority or in such a manner or within such period as may be specified, from time to time, by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. It is the admitted position in this case even conceded by the other side that till date, the State Government has not issued any notification publishing the same in the Official Gazette prescribing manner, period and the authority to whom the returns should be submitted. Therefore, this allegation also has no substance as the State Government has not performed the requirement of law. Therefore, the return could not be submitted. 11. It should be noted that 4451 tins of edible oils were found in possession of the petitioners firm out of which 1232 tins of soyabin refine and 419 tins of sunflower oil i.e. a total of 1651 tins are not edible oils within the meaning of Schedule I of Part-D appended to the Unification Order, 1984. Under Part-D of Schedule I edible oil is not enumerated which includes mustard oil etc. but not soyabin oil. Therefore, it follows that soyabin oils are not covered under Part-D of Schedule I appended to the Unification Order, 1984 and, therefore, seizure of 1651 tins of soyabin refine and sunflower, cannot be held to be in contravention of any of the provisions of the Unification Order, 1984 rather, must be held to be absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. This stock could not have been taken into consideration while counting the numbers of the tins of edible oils. If they are substracted, the case of the prosecution will be difficult, rather impossible to prove excess of the stock. 12. This stock could not have been taken into consideration while counting the numbers of the tins of edible oils. If they are substracted, the case of the prosecution will be difficult, rather impossible to prove excess of the stock. 12. It is admitted position that the vouchers in respect of the purchase of the goods which were received on 25-2-91, were produced before the inspecting party and the Officer Incharge of Adityapur Police who was also a member of the raiding team, put his initial on those papers and left those papers with the Munshies of the firm which are Annexure 4 series. After inspection of the goods also those documents were produced vide Annexure 5. 13. It should be noted that the storage limit fixed by the notification with regard to edible oils in B and C Class City has been quashed and what is meant by B Class City or C Class, has not yet been notifled. Under similar circumstance, a Bench of this Court, in Cr. Misc. No. 9231/87 has quashed the criminal prosecution on 30 8-91, a photo copy of the judgment of which has been filed. In the said judgment it was found that the notification issued has not mentioned as to what is the meaning of B Class City or C Class City. It was also found with regard to edible oil that till today, it has not been defined as to what is the meaning of B Class City. In this view of the matter the criminal prosecution in the said case was quashed. 14. Under similar circumstance, this Court has also quashed the criminal prosecution and the order taking cognizance in Cr. Misc. No. 2625/91 (R) recently on 29-10-91. 15. The another important aspect of the case is that the petitioner is being prosecuted for contravention of certain terms of the licence but either in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet, there is no indication that any sanction was obtained from the competent authority as required under the Proviso to Clause 6 of the Unification Order, 1984. This is also an illegality for which the prosecution case must fail. 16. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed. The entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners and the order of taking cognizance, are hereby quashed.