Judgment D.S.Dhaliwal, J. 1. Chunilal Agrarwal and Santosh Kumar Agarwal, the petitioners herein, pray for quashing of their criminal prosecution under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No.122 of 1990 pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act). Dhanbad, including the order dated 14-2-1991 whereby the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the said offence. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22-4-1990 at about 8.45 a.m. on receipt of secret information Sub - Inspector. Anil Kumar of Katras (Rajganj) Out Post raided the godown of the petitioners and found a truck being unloaded there. This led to seizure of rice weighing 93 quintals contained in 93 bags. Maize weighing 21 quintal contained in 24 bags. Gram weighing 8 quintals contained in 8 bags and one bag Masur Dal weighing 90 kgs from the truck/premises of the petitioners. The Sub - Inspector sent a written report in this respect to Katras (Rajganj) Police Station as a result whereof case F.I.R No. 122/ 90 was formally registered. After completion of the investigation police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners, the truck owner and the driver for their having committed offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of clause 3 of Bihar trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) Acting on the police report, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and their co - accused. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, AP.P. for the State and perused the records with their assistance. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the storage of the food stuffs recovered, the petitioner were not required to take any licence and as such they cannot be said to have violated the provision of Clause 3 of Unification Order so as to make them liable for offence under Sec. 7 of the Act. Elaborating his point the learned Counsel submitted that storage limit in respect of rice, stood withdrawn by the State Government, on the date of recovery, Vide notification No. G.S.R.75 dated 10th November, 1986. Elaborating his point the learned Counsel submitted that storage limit in respect of rice, stood withdrawn by the State Government, on the date of recovery, Vide notification No. G.S.R.75 dated 10th November, 1986. As regards Maize, Counsel maintained that the storage limit had been fixed at 30 quintals and as such the recovery of 21 quintals of Maize from the petitioners was well within the storage limit. Regarding the recovery of Gram and masur Dal it has been submitted that since no licence fee for dealing in pulses had been fixed by the State Government the Unification Order was not workable in respect to the Trade Articles of Gram and Masur Dal. Learned A.P.P. for the State has fairly conceded to the aforesaid factual position. 5. The perusal of various notifications issued by the State Government go to show that the storage limit of various Trade Articles including what and rice was fixed by the State Government for the first time, on 17-10-1985, vide G.S.R. No.49. However, Later on vide G.S.R.No.57 dated 10-11-1986, the restriction in respect to stock limit of wheat and rice was removed. Thus there was no storage limit in force in respect to rice on the alleged date of recovery. By now it is well settled by various decisions of this Court and also by the Apex Court that in order to proceed against the persons for violation of Unification Order fixation of storage limit of the Trade Articles is a sine qua non. Case 2 of the G.S.R.No.57 dated 10-11- 1986 which fixed the storage limit in respect of the food-grains reads as follows: The retail dealer of food-grains means a person who at time holds stock of any quantity of food grains of one or all types taken together for purchase and sale other than personal consumption exceeding 30 (thirty) quintals but not exceeding 100 quintals. The restriction on stock limit on wheat and rice is hereby removed. The stock of wheat and rice will not taken into consideration along with other grains Since the restriction on stock of rice had been withdrawn, after excluding the recovery of rice the recovery of the other- food-grains i.e. Maize recovered from the premises of the petitioners falls within the exempted limit of 30 quintals and as such the petitioners were not required to take any licence for storage of the recovered quality of maize. Admittedly no licence fee for obtaining licence for dealing in pulses had yet been prescribed by the State Government and in advanced of the same the Unification order, SG far as it relates to pulses cannot be held as workable. A decision of the Division Bench of this Court given in Mahendra Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.1, can be referred to with advantage on this point. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot said to have committed any violation of clause 3 of the Unification Order and as such their prosecution for offence under Sec. 7 of the E. C. Act cannot be sustained. 6. In the result the petition is allowed. The criminal prosecution of the petitioners in the court of Special Judge E.C. Act, Dhanbad, In Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 122 of 1990 and the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner by the court are hereby quashed. 7. Since the case of the two co-accused of the petitioners, Namely, Buta Sahu and Ashok Srivastava, The driver and the owner of the truck stand on no different footing than the of petitioners the interest of justice calls for quashing their prosecution as well and order accordingly.