Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17-12-1996 by which the Special Judge Saharsa has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 13th February, 1996, the business premises of the Petitioner was inspected and it was found that 170 quintals 63 kgs of rice was in excess than the stock entered in the stock register. On demand, a document was produced showing purchase of 169 quintals 85 gs. of rice from a firm of Delhi. On Display Board, opening stock as, per stock register was mentioned. Accordingly, a criminal case under Sec. 7 of the Act was filed against the Petitioner and Saharsa PS Case No. 79 of 1996 was registered. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of sanction granted by the District Magistrate, Saharsa against two firms including Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that no case is made out against the Petitioner since there was no storage limit fixed by the Government, on the date of occurrence. It has also been submitted that at the time of commencement of business of selling stock was duly displayed on the Display Board. There is no requirement in the Display Order to make minute to minute entries and goon changing entries on the Display Board. Annexure 5 to the petition is a circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, informing the Food grain Dealers Association that the Central Government has decided to abolish the stock limits on wheat and rice. This fact has also been supported by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Therefore, there was no limit for stock on the date of occurrence. As such, the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted for violation of storage in excess of stock limit. So far, the submission of the counsel regarding violation of Display Order is concerned, from Annexure 2, it appears that there was appropriate sanction granted by the District Magistrate to proceed with the case against the petitioner but so far the display of the articles is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that it was not possible to update the Board minute to minute. Even if valid sanction was obtained by the competent Authority, no case is made out for not updating the Display Board. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Cr Misc No. 7180 of 1986 in which it has been held that stock at the time of commencement of business was duly displayed on the Display Board, there is no requirement in the Display Order to make minute to minute entries and go on changing entries on the Display Board. As such it was held that this was not the violation of provisions of the Display Order. This case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the Special Judge, Saharsa in Special Case No. 3 of 1996 against the Petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, it is set aside. In the result, this revision petition is allowed.