ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both Cr. W.J.C. 811/93 and Cr. Misc. No. 17429/93 raise common question of law and facts and arise out of one and the same criminal proceeding. Both of them therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in both the cases are partners of a firm namely M/s. Ashok Industries, Gola Road, Barh. The Daal Mill premises of the firm were raided on 11th November 1993 and on the basis of an FIR lodged by the Addl. District Supply Officer, Barh (respondent no. 2 in the writ application) Barh P.S. case no. 559/93 u/s 7 of the E.C. Act was instituted. Both the petitioners seek quashing of their prosecution in Special case no. 29/93 pending before the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, which arises out of the aforesaid police case. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on the allegations made no case for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984 (hereinafter the 'Unification order') and the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Stock and Price Order 1977 (hereinafter the 'Display Order') has been made out and as such the prosecution of the petitioner u/s. 7 of the E.C. Act is unwarranted and not sustainable in the eye of law. It may be mentioned that the petitioner of Cr. Misc. application had earlier filed Cr. WJC. 726/93 before this court and a division Bench of this court pending final decision of this case had been pleased to release the articles seized in connection with the police case in question vide its order dated 26.11.93 a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ application. It was argued that the provisions of the Unification Order and the Display Order were unworkable and unenforceable as there is no charging provisions in respect of the pulse mills. There is no controversy between the parties that the articles that had been seized in course of the raid from the premises of the petitioners firm were pulses. 1his is also born out by the contents of the FIR. copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases relied on a decision of this court in Parsuram Prasad vs. State of Bihar ( 1996 (2) PLJR 56 ). 1his is also born out by the contents of the FIR. copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases relied on a decision of this court in Parsuram Prasad vs. State of Bihar ( 1996 (2) PLJR 56 ). The court in the said case had accepted the argument that the petitioner who was a producer and not a dealer was not required to take licence for display of stock and the relevant provisions of the Unification Order and the Display Order were not attracted in his case. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court where a similar questions had been raised in M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills and others vs. State of U. P. and others reported in 1987 E. F. R. 211 and a special leave petition against the said judgment of the court was dismissed by the Apex court. It is the averment in the application that the petitioners Dal Mill owner process whole pulses into split pulses and sell it to the whole seller or through commission agent. In other words they are not dealer and as such they are not required to have any licence and also not reqired to comply with the provisions of the Unification Order and the Display order. Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded that both the cases are convered by the decision of this court in Parsuram Prasad's case (supra). For the foregoing reasons the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and an abuse of the process of the court and its quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The writ application and the Cr. Misc are therefore, allowed.