Judgment P.K.Deb and Surinder Sarup JJ. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. G. has been preferred by the abovenamed accused-petitioners against the order dated 31-3-1987 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E. C. Act was taken against the petitioners alongwith two others in Mango P. S. Case Mo. 224 of 1986. 2. This quashing petition has been preferred on 12-2-1988 and the case was ordered to be heard alongwith Cr. Misc. No. 2811 of 1987 (R), but unfortunately that case has already been disposed by this Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 2-11-1995 due to over sight. 3. The prosecution case as is revealed from Annexure-1 is that on 28-9-1986 one Sri S. R. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police found truck No. BRT 303 standing near the house of co-accused Irshad Khan. Due to defect in the truck, it was standing and the wheat was being unloaded in the verandah of Irshad Khan. Truck driver was not found. As no one claimed the wheat in question the wheat found in the truck and the truck was seized. The informant opined that as the wheat in question was unclaimed and when the truck owner and driver were not found at the site it was evident that the wheat was being carried clandestinely and as such the truck owner, the driver and Irshad Khan; are punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the B. C. Act. 4. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the said section of penal provision and by cryptive order dated 31-3-1987 the First Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur acting as Special Judge under the E. C. Act in G. R. Case No. 1680-A of 1986 took cognizance against the present two petitioners alongwith Irshad Khan and Tauhir Begum only under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. No cognizance was taken under Section 414, IPC as the same was not triable by Special Judge summarily. 5. The only contention of the petitioners is that the whole prosecution against the petitioners is bad as at the relevant time there was no restriction on the movement of wheat or wheat products under the Unification order. No cognizance was taken under Section 414, IPC as the same was not triable by Special Judge summarily. 5. The only contention of the petitioners is that the whole prosecution against the petitioners is bad as at the relevant time there was no restriction on the movement of wheat or wheat products under the Unification order. The allegation against the petitioners being the truck owner and driver is that they had violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles Unification Order, 1984. But the wheat restriction on the wheat commodities and the rice have been withdrawn in 198S by Notification No. GSR 49 dated 17-10-1985 as per storage limit under Clause 1(a) and 1(b) as also under Clause 2 of the Unification Order. Afterwards soms storage limit were inducted but the same was struck down by this Court, then by Notification No. 57 dated 10-11-1986 restriction on the stock limit has again been withdrawn. Thus on the date of seizure, there was no restriction either on the storage limit or on the movement of wheat and wheat products. 6. In that view of the mattar, the prosecution launched against the petitioners is bad in the eye of law. Practically, this Court has taken the view in very many cases as reported in A. Sahu v. State of Bihar, 1990 East CrC 88, Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of Bihar 1995 (2) East CrC 64 and also recently in Cr. Misc. No. 1132 of 1989 (R) and Cr. Misc. Case No. 2811 of 1987 (R). The present circumstances of the case are totally covered under those decisions. 7. The prosecution is bad against the petitioners. The cognizance taken against the abovenamed two petitioners by the impugned order is hereby quashed.