Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing the order, dated 21-7-1986 passed by Special Judge, Sitamrhi in G. R. No. 688/85 (Tr. No. 40/86) taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of petitioner are that the Marketing Officer along with the Supply Inspector inspected the business premises of the petitioner known as M/s. Babra Stores at Sheohar. The petitioner was present at the time of inspection and showed relevant papers to him but the verification of the store was not made on that day i.e. on 14-6-1985 and thereafter, the godown was sealed and again inspection of the godown was made on the next date i.e. on 15-6-1985 at 11.10 A. M. and after verification there was shortage of 20 bags of levy cement as according to the stock register there should have been 251 bags of cement but 241 bags was found. The stock register was maintained up to 23-5-1985 and the cash memo with regard to the levy cement was also made up to 26-2-1985. The levy cement was kept in different godown though there was space vacant in the godown for keeping levy cement. 3. Thereafter the Marketing Officer filed written report against the petitioner before Sheohar Police Station stating the aforesaid facts and further stating that the petitioner has sold the cement in the black market; On the basis of the said report, first information report was drawn up and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and thereafter the Special Judge by the aforesaid order took cognizance against him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have violated the terms and conditions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (in Short Unification Order) but at the relevant time, no notification fixing storage limit of cement was issued and as such the aforesaid Unification Order was not applicable at the relevant time because of absence of any storage limit and as such the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the violation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid order. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that there were discrepancies in the maintenance of the stock register for which a maximum punishment is only one year as prescribed under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the period of limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable up to one year is one year and cognizance in this case was taken after more than one year and accordingly, the prosecution is barred by limitation. 5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the allegation in the present case prima facie constitute in offence alleged against the petitioner and this Court at this stage cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid allegation. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the first question to be decided in this case is as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the violation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Unification Order in absence of any notification fixing the storage limit of cement issued under the aforesaid Order. The learned counsel for the State did not bring to my notice any notification fixing the storage limit of cement at the alleged date of occurrence. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Trading Company v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1988 PLJR 463 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1988 PLJR (SO) 44 in support of his submissions. This Court in the case of Rajesh Trading Company (supra) held that the Unification Order is not workable when no notification fixing the storage limit has been issued under the aforesaid Order. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1983 PLJR (SC) 44(supra). 7. As no notification of storage limit with regard to the cement was issued on the date of the alleged occurrence, the Unification Order was not workable and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the violation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Order. 8. 7. As no notification of storage limit with regard to the cement was issued on the date of the alleged occurrence, the Unification Order was not workable and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the violation of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Order. 8. In view of the fact that this application is being allowed on the first point itself, it is not necessary to decide that the prosecution of the petitioner was barred by limitation or not. 9. In the result, the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance, dated 21-7-1986 is quashed.