Judgment DALJIT SINGH DHALIWAL, J. 1. On 14-10-1987 the Flour Mill and the shop of the petitioners, situated at Chas, was raided by Shri R. Ansari, Supply Inspector, Chas, which yielded in recovery of 58 tins containing edible oil stored therein. These were seized by the Supply Inspector. While the proceedings were going on, it is alleged that 3 hand carts loaded with sugar, mustard oil and coconut were seen coming towards the shop. The Supply Inspector tried to intercept the carts upon which a halla was raised as a result of which large number of persons gathered there and the persons pulling the carts managed to escape. From the said carts 8 bags of sugar, 20 tins of mustard oil and cocunut weighing 60 Kgs. were recovered. Supply Inspector sent written report to the police station, as a result whereof Chas P. S. Case No. 122/87 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners. After completidn of the investigation final report wa6 submitted in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act) Dhanbad, who acting on the same took cognizance for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for their discharge which was rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 8-6-1989. Feeling aggrieved all the four accused persons filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance and the order dated 8-6-1989 whereby the Special Judge (E. C. Act) rejected their application for discharge in the aforesaid case. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Add). P.P. for the State and have perused the records. 3. It is submitted by Mr. S. L. Agarwal, the counsel for the petitioner, that as per prosecution the petitioners are said to have violated the provisions of clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be raferred to as Unification Order) which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. S. L. Agarwal, the counsel for the petitioner, that as per prosecution the petitioners are said to have violated the provisions of clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be raferred to as Unification Order) which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Counsel maintained that the State Government although vide Notification being GSR No. 49 dated 17-10-1985 fixed storage limit in respect to edible oil in respect to Class-A, B and C cities but as the State Government has not declared as to which of the cities would fall within the category A Class, B Class or C Class, cities the Unification Order remains unworkable in respect to edible oils. In support of his contention counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in a case reported as Shambhu Nath Agarwal v. State of Bihar, 1991 (1) PLIR 462 and an unreported Judgment of this Court tendered in Cr. Misc. Case No. 2625/91 (R) : Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar As regards the recovery of 3 bags of sugar from the hand-carts, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that Clause 3 of the Unification Order i6 attracted only in case of storage of articles. In this case the bags of sugar are said to have been seized while these were in transit, therefore, it cannot be said that there were in storage of the petitioners, and at the worest even if it be presumed that the articles were being brought to the shop of the petitioners it only amount to preparation for storage and in that situation no offence with regard to the sugar can be said to have been completed so as to make the petitioners liable under the Act. In this respect counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Prem Bahadur v. State of Orissa, 1978 Cr. L.J. 683. 4. On the other hand, the contentions of the Addl. P.P. is that since as many as 58 tins each containing 15 Kgs. of edible oil were recovered from the business premises of the petitioners which was much above the storage limit fixed by the State Government, the petitioners were required to obtain licence and as such the violation of the provisions of the Unification Order on their part is clearly made out. 5. of edible oil were recovered from the business premises of the petitioners which was much above the storage limit fixed by the State Government, the petitioners were required to obtain licence and as such the violation of the provisions of the Unification Order on their part is clearly made out. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions and find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners. By now it is well settled that in absence of fixation of storage limit in respect to various articles of trade the Unification Order in respect of those articles cannot be held as workable. The State of Bihar fixed storage limit of various trade articles including edible oil for the first time vide Notification No. GSR 49, dated 17-10-1985. A perusal of that notification goes to show that although in respect of articles of edible oils storage limit has been fixed separately for wholesale dealer and retail dealer for A Class, B Class and C Class cities of the State yet it is nowhere defined as to which city would fall in which category i. e. A Class city, B Class city and C Class city, as a result of this lacuna in the Notification the Unification Order still remains unworkable in respect of edible oils. Reliance in this respect can safely be placed on Shambhu Naths case (supra) and Naresh Kumar AgarwaVs case. Against the judgment of this Court passed in Naresh Kumar case (supra) the State of Bihar filed S.L.P. No. 2330/92 before the Hon ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 16-7-1993. Since the Unification Order remained unworkable on the date of recovery in respect to the edible oil the petitioners cannot be said to have violated any of its provisions in respect to storage of edible oil said to have been recovered from their business premises. 6. As regards the sugar, admittedly, it was recovered from the handcarts while it was in transit. None of the cart pullers, as per prosecution could be arrested. Thus, there is nothing to show even, prima facie, that the sugar was being transported for storage at the business premises of the petitioners. Even if, it be presumed that it was being carried to be stored in the business premises of the petitioner, no offence of storage was yet made out at the time of recovery. Thus, there is nothing to show even, prima facie, that the sugar was being transported for storage at the business premises of the petitioners. Even if, it be presumed that it was being carried to be stored in the business premises of the petitioner, no offence of storage was yet made out at the time of recovery. It only remained a preparatory act which cannot be visited by a penal consequence. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders as well as the criminal prosecution of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act) in Chas P. S. Case No. 122/87 are hereby quashed.