Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-5-93 passed in Govindpur (Barbadda) P. S. Case No. 246/90 (G. R. 2612/90) by reason of which the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) (shortly E. C. Act) has refused to discharge the petitioner, he has moved this court in the present application for quashing the entire criminal prosecution against him including the order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 2. Mr. P. D. Agfawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with his usual industrial precession, has tried to assail the impugned order by formulating the following points : (i) on the alleged date of occurrence there was no storage limit in respect of rice and, as such, the Unification Order is not applicable ; (ii) there being no storage limit, a person cannot be prosecuted for violation of any provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order). 3. In order to appreciate the points raised, a potray of factual background is necessary : The Supply Inspector made a written report alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had received some quantity of rice in between 7-8-1990 to 17-8-1990 and distributed the same from the railway goods shed to different dealers. The petitioner, though was required to have a licence under the Unification Order, was carrying business in rice without any such licence and, as such, was liable to be punished under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 4. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and on 10-4-1991 cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E. C. Act was taken by the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act), Dhanbad. Subsequently the petitioner made an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge on the grounds mentioned therein but by the impugned order the learned court below having found that the petitioner is covered by the term dealer and has acted without any licence violating the provisions of the E. C. Act, has refused to discharge the petitioner. 5. Unification Order was issued by notification No. G. S. R. 9, dated 19th April, 1984 and Section 2(p) and (u) defines retail dealer and whole-sale dealer respectively. 5. Unification Order was issued by notification No. G. S. R. 9, dated 19th April, 1984 and Section 2(p) and (u) defines retail dealer and whole-sale dealer respectively. According to these clauses retail dealer or whole-sale dealer means a person engaged in business of purchase, sale or storage of any article specified in Schedule I for purpose other than personal consumption within storage limit fixed by the Government from time to time. Storage limit of trade articles was fixed for the first time by notification No. G.S.R. 49, dated 17th October, 1985. Clauses (1) and (2) thereof limit the storage for foodgrain dealers. Reading this notification it appears that for storage upto 30 quintals no licence is required. For storage upto 100 quintals licence of retail dealer is required and above 100 quintals licence for whole-sale dealer is required. Both clauses (1) and (2) speak of licences for holding stock of any quantity of foodgrains of one or all types taken together, meaning thereby that rice also comes under this notification. However, this notification was subsequently amended by notification No. G. S. R. 57, dated 10th November, 1986 which, inter alia, provides that restriction on the stock limit of wheat and rice was removed and the stock of wheat and rice would not be taken into consideration alongwith the stock of other grains. This notification was considered by this court in the case of Adkhayabat Sao alias Adkhyabat Sah v. The State of Bihar reported in 1990 East Cr C 88 and it was held that there being no storage limit fixed in respect of rice and wheat, no offence is said to have been made out in relation thereto. 6. The notification dated 10th November, 1986 was again amended by notification No. G. S. R. 42, dated 21st November, 1987 and clauses (1) and (2) thereof were substituted. By this amendment restriction of stock limit of wheat and rice, which was removed by notification No. G. S. R. 57, was withdrawn. This amended notification was held to be invalid by this court in the case of Aditya Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and others v. State of Bihar and another reported in 1990 (II) PLJR 143 on the ground that prior concurrence of the Central Government was not taken. This view was also taken by a Division Bench in the case of Ram Narain Pd. This view was also taken by a Division Bench in the case of Ram Narain Pd. and others v. State of Bihar and another and analogous cases reported in 1991 East Cr C 465. However, it is not disputed that by a fresh notification being G.S.R. No. 13, dated 23rd August, 1990 amendments in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clauses (1) and (2) of G. S. R. 49, dated 17th October, 1985 fixing storage limit of trade articles were made. 7. In such circumstance, the argument of Mr. Agrawal that atleast in between 10-11-1986 i.e. when the notification No. G. S. R. 57, dated 10-11-1986 removing restriction on the stock limit of wheat and rice was published, and 22-8-1990 i.e. the date before notification No. G. S. R. 13, dated 23rd August, 1990 was published, there was no storage limit fixed in respect of rice and, as such, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for violation of any clause under the Unification Order, holds good. Admittedly, the alleged date of occurrence is in between 7-8-1990 to 17-8-1990. In this circumstance, in my opinion, the argument of Mr. Agrawal must prevail. 8. Mr. R. C. P. Sah, learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State has fairly submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Unification Order. 9. It is now well-settled that in order to proceed against a person for violation of the Unification Order, fixation of storage limit of the trade article is a sin qua non. Unless storage limit of the trade article is fixed, no offence can be said to have been committed under the provisions of the Unification Order. My aforesaid view finds support from the decision in the case of Rajesh Trading Company v. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 468 which has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1988 PLJR 44 (SC). 10. From the impugned order it is manifest that the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act) has not considered this aspect of the matter though he has opined that there is sufficient material to explain the substance of accusation against the accused. 10. From the impugned order it is manifest that the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act) has not considered this aspect of the matter though he has opined that there is sufficient material to explain the substance of accusation against the accused. On the contrary the learned Court below has taken into consideration the definition of the term broker as defined in Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act. In my opinion, the order taking cognizance as well as the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner cannot be sustained in law simply on the ground that on the alleged date of occurrence when the petitioner was engaged in dealing with rice, there was no notification fixing storage limit of rice. 11. There are catena of decisions to the effect that when the facts alleged either in the complaint or in the FIR do not constitute an offence, the continuation of the prosecution in an abuse of process of law and the High Court exercising its power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can quash the proceeding. 12. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 29-5-1993 as well as the whole criminal proceeding against the petitioner in connection with Govindpur (Barbadda) P. S. Case No. 246/90 (C. R. 2612/90) under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is hereby quashed.