Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the entire proceeding including the order dated 2-12-1992 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Aurangabad in G. R Case No. 18/90 arising out of Rafiganj P.S. case No. 160/90 by which the Court below has not discharged the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Supply Officer, Rafiganj gave a written report on 3-11-1990 stating therein that on 2-11-1990 at about 3 p.m., he was going towards bus stand from Rafiganj Market in the way on the road he met Md. Sahebganj and Habib Mian who were carrying coal in their hand. It is further alleged that they complained to the informant that the petitioner has realised more price than the price fixed by the Government. On this complaint, the Informant went to the premises of the petitioner coal shop. He found about 12 tons and 100 Kg. steam coal and about 22 tons and 380 Kg. of soft coal. Further case of the prosecution is that Md. Sahebganj informed that Rs. 24/ - has been realised for 20 Kg. of soft coal which is higher than the fixed price. Md. Habib complained that the petitioner realised Rs. 6.60 for 6 Kg. which is much higher than the price fixed by the Government. It has been alleged that no such cash memo was given to them. On the basis of the aforesaid statement Rafiganj Police instituted a case as Rafiganj P.S. case No. 0160/90 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The police took up investigation and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. 3. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has submitted that the storage-limit for coal has not been prescribed with respect to the retail and whole sale dealer in terms of clauses (P) and (U) of the order and, therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction and uncalled for. He has further submitted that in absence of any notification fixing the price of coal under the order, the very charge of selling the coal at higher price is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. He has further submitted that in absence of any notification fixing the price of coal under the order, the very charge of selling the coal at higher price is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel on these points has placed reliance on an unreported judgment i.e. Sidheshwar Pandey V/s. State of Bihar and others. In this case also, it has been held that in the absence of notification fixing the storage limit, the Unification Order will not be workable in relation to 40 tons of coat. In the present case also, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Unification Order mainly on the charges that the petitioner was selling the coal at the rate higher than the rate fixed by the Government. However, as already submitted that the since there was no notification fixing the price of the coal the case lodged against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law, and the impugned order passed by the Court below is fit to be set aside in absence of the provisions of law against which the petitioner was charge-sheeted. Admittedly, the same was not workable at the time of occurrence. 4. Accordingly, the prosecution case initiated against the petitioner is set aside and this revision petition is allowed.