JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these petitions may be disposed of by a common order as identical questions of law and facts are involved. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash pending criminal proceedings against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur and Special Judge, Jhunjhunu. The matter is at the initial stage as only charge-sheets have been filed and the petitioner, instead of appearing before the concerned Court, has approached this Court to quash the proceedings. 2. The facts need not be given in detail as they are mentioned in the respective charge-sheets. Suffice is to say that crime No. RC-2(A)/88 ACU(vii) New Delhi was registered in the branch office of CBI at Jaipur on a complaint made by Shri J.P. Vimal, Dy. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his letter dated 1.12.1988. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that there are allegations against the petitioner to have entered into conspiracy and by abusing his financial position as public servant, he managed to lift 100 bales of controlled cloth during 1983-85 in violation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Controlled Cloth (Sales and Distribution Control) Order, 1975 (For short the Control Order) issued Under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The bails were lifted from various mills of National Textile Corporation and diverted the same for black marketing. The petitioner and certain other officers of the office of Textile Commission of India, Bombay, had acted in conspiracy with one Shri Hari Om Agrawal S/o Shri Radhey Shyam of Hari Om Cloth House, Mandawa, district Jhunjhunu. According to the complaint the dealer could not have succeeded in their design without active connivance of the officials of the Excise Commissioner, Bombay, who abused their official position as public servant and allowed the dealer to lift the controlled cloth on the basis of forged/bogus authorisation letter which facilitated dealers to lift the quota and despatch the same in black marketing. 3. The investigation conducted in the case also reveal that during the year 1983-85 the Government of India made it mandatory for all mills under the National Textile Corporation to provide certain quantity and quality of cloths to be sold at pre-fixed prices. This was done with a view to provide cloths at subsidised rates to the weaker Sectionsof the society. The investigation conducted in the case also reveal that during the year 1983-85 the Government of India made it mandatory for all mills under the National Textile Corporation to provide certain quantity and quality of cloths to be sold at pre-fixed prices. This was done with a view to provide cloths at subsidised rates to the weaker Sectionsof the society. The Government of India gave the N.T.C. mills a subsidy at the rate of 50% under this scheme. The cloth so supplied was called controlled cloth. The said controlled cloth was to be allocated to different States/Union Territories on the basis of population ratio. It also revealed that the Government of Rajasthan issued Control Order, 1975 on the advice of Government of India and as per this order, no firm/person was authorised to deal/store, sell the controlled cloth without authorisation letter of the Collector (Supply) or the District Supply Officer. This system was also effective in 1983-84. The Government of Rajasthan had appointed Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh, Jaipur as a wholesaler/dealer for lifting the controlled cloth against quota allotted by the Central Government and arranging the distribution of the same through fair price shops in the State. No dealer either wholesaler or retailer was permitted to lift the controlled cloth for Rajasthan State without having a licence issued under the said control order. 4. The investigation also revealed that an application was moved by Shri Shiv Shankar Agrawal, the co-accused in the office of the District Supply Officer, Jhunjhunu, on 19.9.1984 in the fake name of one Shri Nari Om Agrawal as Proprietor of M/s. Hari Om Cloth House, Mandawa for issuance of authorisation letter for the sale of controlled both. This application was entertained by Shri Lalita Prasad Mathur, another co-accused in the case. The then District Supply Officer Jhunjhunu, who made endorsement on the said application. The D.S.O. did not take any step for verification of the application or the site plan which was mandatory. The co-accused Phool Chand Choudhary who was dealing Assistant in the office of D.S.O., Jhunjhunu, had processed the application and suggested that the challan for depositing the security as well as licence fee be approved and signed. This was made on 21.9.1994. On the same day, Shri L.P. Mathur approved the note. Consequently, the security amount of Rs. 500/- and licence fee of Rs. This was made on 21.9.1994. On the same day, Shri L.P. Mathur approved the note. Consequently, the security amount of Rs. 500/- and licence fee of Rs. 5/- was deposited on 21.9.1994 through a challan allegedly signed by Shri Hari Om Agrawal. On 21.9.1994, co-accused Phool Singh Choudhary again put up a note against D.S.O. informing him that the security amount and licence fee have been deposited by the applicant and therefore, the licence prepared by him is put up for signature. The co-accused L.P. Mathur signed the licence on the same day and a licence was issued in favour of Hari Om, controlled cloth dealer, Mandawa. The investigation also revealed that the signature of Shri Om Agrawal was forged by co-accused Phool Singh. The investigation also revealed that an authorisation letter No. 3/1984-85 dated 21.9.1994 was issued by Shri L.P. Mathur, D.S.O., Jhunjhunu in favour of Hari Om Cloth Store Mandawa. Thereafter, a fake application in the name of Hari Om Agrawal in the office of NTC (SM) Ltd., Bombay for release of 400 bales of controlled cloth. All other details have been given as to how the controlled cloths were obtained by a skillful design with conspiracy of the officials of the office of Textile Commissioner, Bombay. The Investigating Agency found that offences Under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 421 Indian Penal Code and Under section 7 read With Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act were made out against the accused persons. However, in view of Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act two separate charge-sheet came to be filed. One charge-sheets Under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and other charge-sheet for the offences punishable Under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 & 473 Indian Penal Code, were filed. Along with the charge-sheet a list of as many as 65 documents was filed and a list of 39 witnesses was submitted. 5. Shri K.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner from the evidence and material produced along with the charge-sheets. It was also contended that the order of 1975 issued Under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was a temporary enactment and the same has elapsed, as such the trial cannot proceed against the petitioner. 6. It was also contended that the order of 1975 issued Under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was a temporary enactment and the same has elapsed, as such the trial cannot proceed against the petitioner. 6. As already stated earlier, the matter is at the initial stage, inasmuch as, only two charge-sheets have been filed. From the material on record and by perusal of the charge-sheets, it does not appear that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. However, I do not like to express any final opinion on this question as arguments on framing charge still have to be heard by the learned trial Court and the petitioner will be in a position to make his submissions/objections at that stage to convince the said Court that no charge can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. The second question can also be stated before the concerned Court instead of approaching this Court directly Under section 482. 7. After going through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of power Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******