ORDER This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.2.1999, passed by the Special Judge, Purnea, under the Essential Commodities Act, in Special Case No. 1/92, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Curt in the case of Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) 3 BLJR 2196. 2. The abovementioned case was started for violation of certain conditions of the licence granted under clause 16(1) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and, therefore, punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Cognizance of the offence was taken on 21.2.1992. The petitioner thereafter appeared and was granted bail on 28.5.1992 and, thereafter accusation was also explained to him on 15.9.1992. One witness (PW1) was examined on 17.7.1993 and some of the witnesses were later examined upto 16.6.1995. Thereafter, the case remained pending for one reason or the other. 3. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition before the learned Special Judge for discharge mainly on the ground that the prosecution continued pending for evidence for a period of more than three years but the case could not be disposed of. The learned Judge rejected the petition by the impugned order that for a pretty long time, the Court remained vacant after the transfer of the Bresiding Officer. He further said that again on 19.12.1998, fresh trial was started and substance of accusation was read over to the accused. On 4.2.1999, two witnesses were produced by the prosecution but adjournment was sought for on behalf of the defence. 4. In my view, for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Ad, Courts are required to dispose of the case expeditiously like a summary trial. In this case, as noticed above, although cognizance was taken in the year 1992, but the case continued till this day. 5. 4. In my view, for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Ad, Courts are required to dispose of the case expeditiously like a summary trial. In this case, as noticed above, although cognizance was taken in the year 1992, but the case continued till this day. 5. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that in the case of Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar (supra), the apex Court directed that in case offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years, whether the accused is in jailor not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed, unless, for very exceptional reason, to be recorded, in the interest of justice, the Court if considers necessary, can grant time to the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time. From a bare perusal of the facts on record as well as the impugned order, no such exceptional reason has been assigned by the learned Judge to allow the case to continue. 6. In the result, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Judge as well as the entire prosecution in Sp., Case No. 1/ 92 pending before the Special Judge, Purnea under the Essential Commodities Act. The petition is accordingly allowed, to the extent indicated above.