Judgment B.N.Agrawal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act) for violation of the provisions of Bihar Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as Unification Order). 3. What facts are that pursuant to inspection conducted by the informant in the premises of the two firm, certain irregularties were found and stocks of hydroganated vegetable oil, flour and sugar were seized Pursuant to the seizure, the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which a first information report was lodged. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned special Judge, Essential Commodities Act and the petitioners were summoned to face trial. 4. The seizure was further reported to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who initiated a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act Challenging the seizure the petitioners moved this Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 60 of 1990 (R) 1996 (1) East CrC 630 and this Court by its judgment dated 9th January, 1996 quashed the seizure on the ground that since the aforesaid two firms were manufacturers, the provisions of Unification Order were not applicable, and, therefore, on the facts alleged it could not be said that there was violation of any provision of the Unification order or any other order issued under Section 3 of the Act 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that since in relation to same very this Court has recorded a finding that on the facts disclosed there was no contravention of either the provisions of the Unification Order or any other order issued under Section 3 of the Act, prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the proceses of the court. We find force in the submission of learned counsel, and, accordingly, we hold that prosecution of the petioners becomes unwarranted and is liable to be quashed. 6. For the forgoing reasons, the writ application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners is hereby quashed. 7. The writ application is thus, disposed of.