Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.6.1991 taking cognizance against the petitioner and one Naresh Kumar Agrawal. 3. According to the prosecution case, the Assistant District Supply Officer, Saraikelia along with the other officials inspected the godown of one Naresh Kumar Agarwal situated in the house of Lalit Kumar Tulsiyan on 28.2.1991 and found 6243 tins of the edible oil stored in two rooms. On enquiry it transpired that the aforesaid said tins of edible oil belonged to Naresh Kumar Agarwal and said godown was not found mention in the licence. Thereafter, a first information report was lodged by the District Supply Officer against the Proprietor Naresh Kumar Agarwal and his employees (petitioners) as well as the owner of the house, alleging therein that the licence and his employees in conspiracy with the owner of the house has stored the aforesaid tins of edible oil in protection with the terms and conditions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the order). Naresh Kumar Agarwal came to this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2625 of 1991 for quashing the prosecution. this Court held that the petitioner of the case has duly intimated the authorities that the arrival of the goods as contemplated under Sec. 2(b) of the licence as such he (licencee) has not contravened any of the provisions of the Unification order or the terms of the licence and accordingly quashed the prosecution by judgment dated 29.10.1991. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a S.L.P. filed by the State against the said order has been dismissed by the Supreme Court which fact has not been denied by the State Government. 4. At the initial stage of the prosecution this Court in excess of power under Sec. 482 of the Code cannot quash the prosecution on the basis of the defence taken by the accused. However as the learned Single Judge of this Court has already quashed the prosecution against the licence and the said order has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioners who are his employees cannot be prosecuted as their case is similar to the case of the licence. 5. However as the learned Single Judge of this Court has already quashed the prosecution against the licence and the said order has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioners who are his employees cannot be prosecuted as their case is similar to the case of the licence. 5. Learned Counsel for the State pointed out that with regard to an occurrence of different dates, a case was registered against the licence and the said prosecution was also quashed by this Court and in the S.L.P. filed by the State against the said judgment of this Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial court with a direction to proceed with the trial. This said case related to an allegation of different dates and the judgment referred in this case has no relevancy in this case. The case of the petitioners is covered by the decision of this Court as mentioned above. In the result this application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners is quashed.