Judgment P.K.OEB, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred by the abovenamed accused petitioner for quashing the order dated 22-6-1988 by which cognizance was taken against the petititioner in Sakchi P. S. Case No. 270/87 under Section 7 of the B. C. Act by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur. 2. The application was admitted by the Order dated 31-3-1989 and the hearing of the same was awaited till disposal of Criminal Misc. No. 3392 of 1989 (R) by order dated 24-10-1989. The above mentioned Criminal Misc. case was ultimately disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court without going into the merits of the case but transmitting the same to the court below and liberty was given to the petitioner of that case to agitate their grievance before the trying court. 3. In the present case, the supply officials alougwith police came to the business premises of the petitioner which was run in the name and style of M/s. Saraswati Stores on 11-11-1987 but the same was found to be closed and as such the business premises weie sealed and on 12-11-1987 in presence of the petitioner and his servants/sales men, they inspected the godown and shop and found that the Display Board in the shop premises was dated only 11-11-1987 and that the stocks were not duly displayed as on 12-11-1987 in the Display Board. Further more on verification of the stock, it was found that one bag Maida, 11 bags of Chokar, 14 quintals of Mung Dal were in excess whereas three bags of Chana and 10.50 Quintals and two bags of wheat were not found entered in the stock register and it was alleged that the petitioner had violated condition No. 3 (a) of the licence issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. An FIR was filed by the Supply Officials, which has been contained in Annexure-1 and on the basis of investigation and charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by order dated 22-6-1988 by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur. 4. An FIR was filed by the Supply Officials, which has been contained in Annexure-1 and on the basis of investigation and charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by order dated 22-6-1988 by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no violation of condition No. 3 (a) of the licence under the Unification Order as the wheat and pulses were outside the purview of restricted commodities within the Unification Order as per amendments made in the Order in 1985 and then in 1986. Furthermore, it was stated that Supply Officials have taken a vendetta against the petitioner and other petty dealers in trade articles when there was a direction to the petitioner and other petty dealers to meet the rationing official at his residence. Against that the petitioner alongwith other Dealers had closed down their shops and made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner. As a retaliation to the agitation made by the petitioner and other dealers, vindictively Supply Inspector alongwith police were sent for raiding the business premises of the dealers in the area. The petitioners contention is that as the shop was closed on 11-11-1987, there was no scope for the petitioner to show display board on 12-11-1987 as the shop was already sealed on 11-11-1987 by the Supply Officials. 5. The next point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that by the Notification G. S. R. No. 49 dated 17-10-1985 amendment was made regarding storage limits under Clause 1 (a) and 1 (b) and also under Clause 2 regarding the wholesale dealer and the retail dealer of food-grains whereby the stock limits of wheat has been removed by the Central Government with effect from 1st April, 1983. Afterwards some storage limit was made but the same was also struck down by this Court and by the Notification No. 57 dated 10-11-1986 the restriction of stock limit of wheat and rice have been removed. Thus, on the date of seizure and raid, there was no storage limit of wheat. Merely even if there was any shortage in the stock or excess thereof, there cannot be any violation of the licence under the Unification Order. This has been held by this Court by a Division Bench in 1993 East CrC p. 586. 6. Thus, on the date of seizure and raid, there was no storage limit of wheat. Merely even if there was any shortage in the stock or excess thereof, there cannot be any violation of the licence under the Unification Order. This has been held by this Court by a Division Bench in 1993 East CrC p. 586. 6. Choker is a product of wheat and as such when no restriction is there for the wheat and wheat products, excess of Choker can also not be attracted for the penal provisions against the petitioner. Moreover pulses are outside the purview of restriction under the Unification Order as mentioned above. The storage limit made under the Unification Order of 1984 by Notification dated 21-11-1987 has already been struck off by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 721 of 1989 (R), hence on the date of inspection and raid there was no storage limit as contemplated under Clause 2 (p) and (u) defining the whole-seller and the retail dealer. No prosecution can be launched for contravention of any provisions of Unification Order with regard to wheat and wheat products and rice and rice products and when pulses are outside any restriction under the Unification Order, none of the violation as raised as per FIR (Annexure-1) can drag the petitioner for facing trial under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. On previous occasion also by a Single Bench of this Court basing on G. S. R. No. 49 dated 17-10-1985 held that launching of prosecution in absence of any storags limit for wheat and rice, no trader can be dragged into trial. There are catena of decisions by this Court in this regard viz. A. Sahu v. The State of Bihar, 1998 East CrC 88, Vijay Bahadur Singh v. The State of Bihar, 1995 (2) East CrC 64. 7. Now, it appears from the records that the cognizance was taken on 22-6-1988 but this petition for quashing cognizance has been taken to this Court on 29-3-1989 only and definitely it was delayed but it has been stated in the petition itself that the trial of the case had not yet been commenced when the petition was filed and as such delay cannot be considered as a barrier in allowing quashing petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In support of this contention, Mr. P. C. In support of this contention, Mr. P. D. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner has referred as a decision of a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1978 PLJR 610, wherein delay with regard to quashing petition is said to be not baned, even it was stated that a second petition for quashing is maintainable even if the previous application was dismissed. 8. Regarding the display board, it is clear from the facts of the case and as is relevant from the statements made in the FIR (Annexure-1) that the shop being found closed, it was sealed by the Supply Officials alongwith police personnel on 11-11-1987 and search and seizure were made on 12-11-1987 in presence of tbe petitioner after breaking the seal. So, the Display Board which was in operation on 11-11-1987 cannot be taken into consideration for display board on 12-11-1987 as because the petitioner did not get any scope for preparation of the display board on 12-11-1987 showing the stock etc. of that date. 9. The dealear is required to only display the board his opening stock of the day and likewise the stock register is also to be manufactured. It is not necessary that the display board would show changes time to time within the course of the day with regard to the sale conducted. Thus, the Display Board on 11-11-1987 cannot be held to be in any violation for the purpose of Display Bnard on 12-11-1987 in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, Mr. Agrawal has referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1993 Eastern India CrC 71. Thus, the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR do no disclose any penal provisions as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act and in that way cognizance taken against the petitioner is legally barred. 10. Mr. I. N. Gupta, counsel appearing for the State has fairly conceded to the legal position as the same has become settled by this time. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Sakchi P. S. Case No. 270/87 before the Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur is hereby quashed. SURINDER SARUP, J. 12 I agree.