JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 27th July, 1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 5/89 State v. Mangilal and other , hereby the learned Special Judge of the Essential Commodities Act, Jalore found a prima facie case under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner, Narsa Ram. By the aforesaid order the learned Special Judge discharged accused Mangilal and Jetha Ram from the charges under sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that in another case these charges were being tried. Petitioner, Narsa Ram was also discharged in respect of the charges under sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for the above mentioned reasons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no iota of evidence to prima facie show that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted by him that there is no averment in the first information report or the challan that Mangilal committed the offence with the connivances or consent of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the order dated 27th July, 1996 should be quashed because it is likely to result in abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the order of the learned lower court. 4. I have considered the rival arguments and perused the record. It appears that the first Information Report was given by the Jalore Cooperative Market Society Limited, Jalore in which it was alleged that according to audit report for the year 83-85. Mangilal did not entered into the account books the purchase and sale of several items mentioned in the audit report and those items were sold by him in black market and the offence of cheating had been committed and offence under Essential Commodities Act was also, committed. On the basis of that report the Police registered the case and started investigation. After investigation the police submitted a challan in respect of offences punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of that report the Police registered the case and started investigation. After investigation the police submitted a challan in respect of offences punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On 8th January, 1991 the petitioner Narsa Ram and another person Jetha Ram were proceeded against under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Special Judge. By his order dated 27th July, 1996 the learned Special Judge held that offence under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act was made out against the accused persons. He, therefore, directed that accusation in respect of offence under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act be read over and explain to the accused persons. The learned Special Judge has not given any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that an offence under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act was prima facie made out against the accused persons. The memo of acquisition dated 27th July, 1996, however, shows that the acquisition against Mangilal, Narsa Ram, Jetha Ram and the Jalore Cooperative Marketing Society is to the effect that they, purchased controlled cloth from Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Limited, Jodhpur and sold that cloth in black market and caused a loss of Rs. 9226-05 paise to the Cooperative Society and thereby committed the offence under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act. Jetha Ram and Narsa Ram are alleged to be the managers of the Cooperative Society. The Order-sheet dated 8th January, 1991 shows that the petitioner Narsa Ram and Jetha Ram were proceeded against under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion on the basis of the record that they were Managers or the Cooperative Society during the period when the alleged irregularity was committed by Mangilal. In the order-sheet dated 8th January, 1991 it has not been mentioned as to what role had been played by the petitioner Narsa Ram and Jetha Ram so as earn liability under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act and what was the evidence on which the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that they were the Managers during the period when the alleged offence was committed. 5. 5. I am afraid in these circumstances, the order dated 27th July, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jalore cannot be maintained. Proceeding against an accused under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code results in initiation of Criminal Proceedings against him for the offence of which cognizance has been taken. There must be sufficient grounds within the meaning of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code to justify the prosecution order against any person under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similarly at the time of commencing a trial against an accused person it must be seen whether there is sufficient grounds to commence a trial against him. Cases in which the accused person does not challenge the proceedings initiated against him, a Magistrate may. proceed to frame a charge without giving reasons in detail but where an accused person seriously objects to the trial on the ground that there is no evidence against him to justify the initiation of a trial, it is necessary that the court should find out the objections raised by him is justified. If there is any evidence to justify the continuance of the proceedings on the ground must be indicated in the order by which his objection is rejected as baseless. In the instant case the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, has not given any reasons for coming to the conclusion that charge under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act was prima facie proved against the petitioner Narsa Ram and Jetha Ram and the Sahakari Samiti. 6. I, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been invoke for quashing the order dated 27th July, 1996. I, therefore, quash the order dated 27th July, 1996 and direct that the learned Special Judge shall re-examine the matter with a view to find out if there is any justification for initiation of a trial of the petitioner and other co-accused under Section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act. Needless to say that he will hear both the parties before passing the order. 7. The record of the case along with the copy of this order be sent to the learned Special Judge of the Essential Commodities Act, Jalore, within a fortnight.> Petition disposed as above. *******