Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. In this application the prayer is for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 20-12-1989 in connection with JC-2 Case No. 3 of 1989 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the Court of Special Judge (E. C. Act), Jamshedpur. 2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 17-12-1989, opposite party No, 2, who was the Senior Marketing Officer at that time inspected the godown stores of M/s. E. C. C. Larsen and Toubro Limited situated at Bhatia Bastee, Kadma, Jamshedpur, where articles for construction of TISCO flats were kept. He found therein four drums of Kerosene oil each containing 200 Litres and and another drum containing 100 Litres of Keroson oil. On the basis of this inspection he filed a complaint before the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Jamshedpur against the Company, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and one Sri R. Subramanium, who was the site Accountant of the godown stores of the Company at Bhatia Bastee, Kadma Jamshedpur at that time. The gravament of the complaint was that by having the above mentioned quantity of Kerosene Oil in godown stores of the Company, there had been a violation of Clause 3 (ii) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Unification Order). Therefore, according to the complainant the Company and the other accused persons had committed offence under Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , certified copy of complaint dated 20-12-1989 is Annexure-1 to this application. On the same date the impugned order was passed by the Special Judge, Jamshedpur, taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners and the said R. Subramanium. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is by now settled law that there is no violation of the Unification Order if the articles in question are kept in stock for being used for any other purpose except sale. In the complaint there is no indication that the quantity of the Kerosene Oil found at the premises of the godown stores of the Company was kept for sale. In the complaint there is no indication that the quantity of the Kerosene Oil found at the premises of the godown stores of the Company was kept for sale. This fact is further clarified by Annexure-2 to this application, which is a copy of a certificate issued by the TISCO to the effect that the Company had been engaged by them for the construction of 1500 workers flats at Jamshedpur and for that purpose it was deploying "Heated Tunnel Form" technology for the construction method. The certificate further indicates that for this method Keroseneo it is needed for heating the concrete for curing the castings, requring 300 Litres of the same for each flat and the Company has to complete 60 flats in a month for which requirement of Kerosene Oil would be 18,000 Litres per month. It is, thus, clear that the quantity of Kerosene Oil found by opposite party No. 2 at the time of his inspection in the godown stores of the Company was not meant for sale. Moreover, in the complaint itself it is mentioned that the godown of the Company is stocked with materials/articles kept there for the purpose of construction. 4. There are two Division Bench judgments of this Court, in which it has been held that a licence under the Unification Order is required to be obtained only by such persons who carried on business of purchase sale and store for sale of any trade article. If a particular trade article is consumed by the concerned person in the sons that he has utilised the same for the minufacturer of any other commodity, such a person cannot be said to be carrying on business in the purchase/sale of any such article. The cases are C. W. J. C. No. 365 of 1994(R) decided on 28-11-1994; 1996 (1) East CrC 389 (Pat) and Cr. W. C. No. 60 of 1990 (R), decided on 9-1-1995 : 1996 (1) East CrC 630 (Pat) (RB). No doubt the articles in question in those two cases were Vanaspatai, wheat flour, sugar, soft drinks etc. The cases are C. W. J. C. No. 365 of 1994(R) decided on 28-11-1994; 1996 (1) East CrC 389 (Pat) and Cr. W. C. No. 60 of 1990 (R), decided on 9-1-1995 : 1996 (1) East CrC 630 (Pat) (RB). No doubt the articles in question in those two cases were Vanaspatai, wheat flour, sugar, soft drinks etc. But the principles of law laid down therein would apply to the present case also inasmuch as admittedly the quantity of Kerosene Oil found at the time of inspection by opposite party No. 2 in the godown of the Company was not meant for sale, but meant for use in the construction of the flats for which the Company was under contract to TISCO. 5. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairmen of the Company based in Bombay while petitioner No. 2 is two Accounts Manager based in Calcutta. There is not even a this for against them in the complaint as to their complicity. All that is mentioned therein is that there has been of Clause 3 (ii) of the Unification Order by the Company and it should be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is dificult to understand in these circumstances as to how the two petitioners have been roped in by opposite party No. 2 in this case. As regatd the commission of any alleged offence by the Company and the other accused persons including the petitions, in peragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2, his own case is that the Company was enlarge by TISCO as per certificate copy of which is Annexure-2 to this application. In other words opposite party party No, 2 himself says 18,000 Litres of Kerosene Oil is required per month by the Company for the construction of flats for the workers of TISCO. 6. This being the position, the quantity of Kerosene Oil found at the time of inspection by opposite party No. 2 was not meant for sale but for construction of the flats. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed, the impugned order dated 20-12-1989 as also the criminal prosecution of the petitions in the above mentioned case are quashed. Revision application is allowed.