Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr PC had been filed by the above named petitioners for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 11.2.1993 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was taken by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Sadar (Town) PS. Case No. 584/92 (G.R. No. 1808 of 1992) and issued processes against the petitioners. 3. The case in brief is that the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Daltonganj in the name of Mr. Anirudh Prasad Singh lodged a written report to the Sadar Police on 27.11.1992 alleging that Awadesh Kumar Pandey being a dealer of L.P. Gas was running a business under the name and style of "M/s. Swarna Enterprises" having licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 issued to him and also renewed till the year 1992. But the licences under the Explosive Act was not found in his possession of the year 1992 but some letters were found to have addressed to the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive for sending the licence. It was further alleged that the dealer was indulging in various irregularities in supply of L.P. Gas and was not carrying on business as per the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at with the Hindustan Petroleum and, as such, the dealer and the petitioners, who are, the employees have become liable for prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C., Act. On the basis of such report, Daltonganj Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 584/92 was registered and Police took up investigation and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Explosive Act and also under the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of such phargesheet, learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, had split up the offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Act as those were not triable by the Special Judge and the case was taken up in respect of only the allegations made under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act then processes were issued. According to the petitioners, in Cr. Misc. Cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act then processes were issued. According to the petitioners, in Cr. Misc. No. 559/94 (R), Awadh Kumar Pandey being the sole Proprietor of M/s. Swaran Enterprises, Daltonganj he may be held liable for any of the violation made but the petitioners being the employees are not liable for any offences as alleged. According to the petitioners, even if the whole allegations are taken to be correct as per the written report of the SDO Sadar then also no case could be made out against the petitioners. As per the petitioner Awadh Kumar Pandey, the Dealer & Proprietor of M/s. Swaran Enterprises, it is stated that as no storage limit was fixed either by the State Government or by the Central Government either for the whole- seller or the retailer then any preventive order passed cannot come within the purview of the Unification Order, 1984, and, as such the dealer was not bound for taking any licence under the Unification Order as the preventive order for L.P. Gas is neither workable nor implementable. It is further mentioned that the dealer was made to take licence under the Unification Order on threat by the authorities and even if such licence being taken the same cannot bind the petitioners. It has further been mentioned that in the first information report nothing has been mentioned as to which order or notifi- cation had been violated as contemplated under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. It is the further case that the SDO concerned registered his name with the dealer for the purpose of getting L.P. Gas connection but he was pressurising the dealer for getting the connection out of turn which was refused by the dealer and being annoyed, the present case has been filed. The main contention of the petitioner is that as there was no fixation of storage limit of the L.P. Gas and hence clause 2(p) and 2(u) being sine qua non the whole Unification Order is inapplicable. It appears that the matter was placed before a Single Bench and the said submission of Mr. The main contention of the petitioner is that as there was no fixation of storage limit of the L.P. Gas and hence clause 2(p) and 2(u) being sine qua non the whole Unification Order is inapplicable. It appears that the matter was placed before a Single Bench and the said submission of Mr. P.D. Agrawal regarding non-fixation of storage limit of L.P. Gas either for the retailer or the wholesaler then the same was not applicable or implementable and not coming within the purview of the Unification Order was considered by the single Bench vide order dated 13.3.1997 and then the matter has been referred to a Division Bench with the observation as follows : "In my opinion, this question will not arise in distribution of L.P.G. Gas the quota is already fixed from the source itself wherefrom it is supplied to the dealer. It is also worth noticing here that the petitioner (?) Awadh Kumar Pandey is a licencee under the Unification Order. No judgment of this Court has been shown to me in support of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners relating to the storage limit in L.P.G. Gas. In that view of the matter, let these cases be referred to a Division Bench to lay down the law on the point formulated above. These cases are referred to the Division Bench." 4. Let us first of all take the factual aspect of the case. Awadh Kumar Pandey the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1881/1993 (R) was the sole proprietor of M/s. Swarna Enterprises and he dealt in L.P. Gas after taking distributorship from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. As required under the law he had taken Licence under Explosive Act and it is the contention of the dealer that although he was not supposed to take any licence as per Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, but on threat of criminal prosecution, he had to take licence under the order and carried on business of L.P. Gas. As required under the law he had taken Licence under Explosive Act and it is the contention of the dealer that although he was not supposed to take any licence as per Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, but on threat of criminal prosecution, he had to take licence under the order and carried on business of L.P. Gas. The SDO as the Civil Supply Authority had lodged the information making various allegations against M/s. Swarna Enterprises to the effect that although consumers names had been registered but they were not being supplied with L.P. Gas but the persons who had applied later on had been supplied L.P. Gas and there were unrest amongst consumers because of bungling being made from the side of the dealer Le. M/s. Swarna Enterprises. Some instances have been specified in the first information report itself which had been annexed to both petitions but in nowhere it is stated as to when and on which date the premises of M/s. Swarna Enterprises had been inspected and searched by the SDO. It was further stated that no document was maintained by M/s. Swarna Enterprises and thus, the owner and his two salesmen who are the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 559/94 (R) are liable to be prosecuted. The case was registered on the basis of the information lodged on 26.11.1992 as G.R. No. 1808/1992 at Sadar Daltonganj P.S. After investigation charge-sheet had been submitted against all the petitioners both under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and also under the penal provisions of the Explosive Act and also under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The main allegations are (i) that the petitioners had violated the condition of the licence as per the Unification Order by indulging in black marketing and (ii) that they were continuing the business without having valid licence under the Explosive Act. After receipt of the charge-sheet under the said sections of the law, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioners while in respect of other, allegations regarding penal provisions of the Explosive Act and that of the Indian Penal Code, the matters had been sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj for doing necessary action. It may be mentioned here that for the other offences arising out of the same incident being sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no petition had been filed from the side of the petitioners against order of taking cognizance or otherwise by the CJM concerned. In the present petition the cognizance taken under Section 7 of the E.C. Act has only been challenged. 5. The grounds of challenge are (i) The Unification Order of 1984 is neither workable nor implementable as no storage limit has been fixed by the State Government or the Central Government and in that way even if the proprietor had obtained a licence as per the order but he was not to be construed as a licensee under the order in true sense of the terms as the order itself is not workable; (ii) The display order as contemplated under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Licence and Stock) Order, 1977 is also not applicable as the same had got no sanction as required under Clause 6(c) of the Order itself. When those points were raised before a learned single Bench of this Oourt the matter has been referred to this Court with the observations as already stated above. According to the learned single Judge, for the LPG no question of declaration by the State Government or the Central Government regarding storage limit is required as storage limit becomes inherent when the distributor le. M/s. Swarna Enterprises had the quota fixed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Products Limited. It is not known as to wherefrom such sort of observations had been gathered by the learned single Judge while referring the matter to the Division Bench. Nowhere in the FIR or in the charge-sheet submitted there is an iota of mention regarding the storage limits the quota fixation by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Private Limited to its different distributor cannot be construed as the storage limit for the purpose of application of the Unification Order, 1984. Moreover the FIR or the chargesheet nowhere discloses nor the order taking cognizance by the special Judge as to for violation of which order either of the Central Government or of the State Government the prosecution has been lodged or charge-sheet has been submitted at the time when the alleged offence was detected. Moreover the FIR or the chargesheet nowhere discloses nor the order taking cognizance by the special Judge as to for violation of which order either of the Central Government or of the State Government the prosecution has been lodged or charge-sheet has been submitted at the time when the alleged offence was detected. GSR 529 (E) dated the 3rd August, 1993 was not in vogue rather at that time only the Central Government Notification, namely, Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 was in vogue wherein neither there was any wholesale dealer or retail dealer had been defined as per Section 2 of that order rather Section 2(d), a distributor had been defined in the following manner : "2(d) "distributor" means a person, a firm an association of persons, a company, a corporation, institution, organisation or a cooperative society engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of liquefied (sic) petroleum gas in cylinders, on the basis of an agreement with an Oil Company, whether or not in conjunction with any other business, his representatives, employee agent not include an Oil Company." 6. Although in the definition sale or storage for sale of LPG has been mentioned but in the whole of the order itself nowhere the storage limit of the distributor had been fixed. In that way when the storage limit has not been fixed then this Unification Order under which the prosecution has been lodged for violation of licence condition cannot be said to be workable or implement able one. This position has been considered by two single Benches of this Court the first one by Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Sarin in Cr. Revision No. 605 of 1988 as reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 103. (See Diwakar Sharma V/s. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) East Cr C 502. In paragraph 4 of that judgment by referring to two decisions, this Court had held that when no storage limit has been fixed for liquified Petroleum Gas under the Unification Order and, as such, Unification Order was not workable in respect of LPG. Referring the said judgment of Honble Mr. In paragraph 4 of that judgment by referring to two decisions, this Court had held that when no storage limit has been fixed for liquified Petroleum Gas under the Unification Order and, as such, Unification Order was not workable in respect of LPG. Referring the said judgment of Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Sarkar as reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 524 (See Surya Narayan Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, 1999 (2) East Cr C 134 (Pat) this Court has held that when there being no notification fixing storage limit of LP Gas the Unification Order becomes unworkable and no tic- tion for violation of licence condition can be taken under those orders. It has now become the settled principle of law as determined by various Benches of this Court in respect of the several items of the Essential Commodity that when no storage limit is being fixed either by the Central Government or as delegated power by the State Government the Unification Order cannot be held to be workable in respect of Gram, Oilseeds, Wheat, Rice, Cement, Cotton, Cloth, Coal, Pulses. The workability of the Unification Order having lack of fixation of storage limit was considered and held by this Court in a catena of judgments that when storage limit has not been fixed either for the wholesale dealer or for the retailed dealer the Unification Order itself is unworkable one. The decisions as referred by Mr. P.D. Agarwal, may be enunciated below : "1988 PLJR 463, 1990 (2) PLJR 365, 1991 (2) PLJR 774, 1990 East Cr C 88, 1992 East Cr C 33, 1991 (2) PLJR 337, 1992 BRLJ 7, 1992 East Cr C 85, 1992 East Cr C 95, 1992 East Cr C 164, 1992 East Cr C 478. 1992 BRLJ 37, 1994 (1) East Cr C 127, 1994 (2) East Cr C 291, 1995 (2) East Cr C 64, 1995 (2) East Cr C 504, 1996 (1) East Cr C 3, 1996 (1) East Cr C 43, 1996 (1) East Cr C 317, 1996 (1) East Cr C 330, 1996 (1) East Cr C 618, 1998 (1) EFR 305, 1990 (2) PLJR 143 1991 East Cr C 76." 7. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala submitted that the question of LPG must not be taken at par regarding storage limit with other essential commodities because LPG is being supplied in sealed cylinders by the source i.e. Ms. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala submitted that the question of LPG must not be taken at par regarding storage limit with other essential commodities because LPG is being supplied in sealed cylinders by the source i.e. Ms. Hindustan Petroleum Products or other such oil companies as registered under the Central Government and as such, when quota has been fixed for distributor and when as per the schedule of the LPG Regulation Order, 1988, it gives the minimum and maximum of the LPG contained in cylinders, then the storage limit becomes a fixed one, I am not convinced with the submission made by Mr. Jhunjhunwala in this respect. For application of Unification Order, the distributor as per the LPG. Regulation Order, even if construed to be coming within retail dealer then also the Central Government or the State Government vis-a-vis must determine the storage limit and unless such storage limit is being determined then such distributor does not come within the purview of definition of "dealer" either wholesale or retail as per Sections 2(d) and 2(u) of the Unification Order does not come to play and hence Unification Order becomes unworkable for the LPG and thus, the prosecution itself under that Order becomes a futile attempt and this was considered by Single Benches of this Court in details and then came to the decisions as mentioned above. In 1993 to cure the defects, perhaps, the Central Government came up with the Notification as per GSR 529 (E) dated 3rd August, 1993 wherein the "public distribution system" etc. had been defined and "the distributor" had also been defined and to some extent, the storage limit may also be considered to be concealed within the definition of "distribution" as per the basis of agreement with the Government Oil Companies but at the time when the present case has been detected the said notification of the Central Government was not in vogue and as such, the same cannot be construed for the purpose of prosecution under the Unification Order. Moreover when the question of storage limit was to be considered then it becomes incumbent duty on the person making search and seizure to have a seizure of gas cylinder vis-a-vis the contents of LPG to show how bungling being made in excess or in less than the storage limit as per fixed with the agreement being made with Government Oil Companies. I have already mentioned that the prosecution lodged is totally a vague one in the present case and on such vagueness it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed offence for violation of the Unification Order which itself becomes unworkable at that time of prosecution for non-fixation of storage limit. Thus, in the present case, the prosecution being vague and when nothing could be shown regarding the storage limit either by agreement or through any notification of the State Government or of the Central Government, the prosecution is definitely bad. 8. In respect of display, the matter was also considered by the learned single Judge as reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 103 (supra). The Display Order of 1977, as per clause (6) it appears that no sanction is there either by the District Magistrate or by the Special Officer Incharge and as such, sub-section (c) of proviso will come into play and the whole prosecution becomes non- cognizable one. Regarding clause (2-A) the matter has already been considered by the learned single Judge in the above judgment. Herein, in the present case, there is no specific allegation as to how there was violation with regard to display. The provisions of showing yes or no have not been categorically shown to be violated neither the date nor the conspicuous place. 9. Regarding the penal provision under the Explosive Act, it is thereon the records that till 1992 there was valid licence and for the next year the original licence was sent to Calcutta for renewal and during the pendency of this prosecution the licence had been renewed by the authority. However, as already mentioned above, no challenge has been made by the petitioners regarding the prosecution being made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, in respect of penal provisions under the Explosive Act or that of the Indian Penal Code. I am not dealing with the same at this stage. Hence, I refrain from considering other aspects of offences being committed by the petitioners either under the Explosive Act or under the Indian Penal Code but this much can be said that the prosecution under the E.C. Act against the petitioners is bad in the eye of law. 10. I am not dealing with the same at this stage. Hence, I refrain from considering other aspects of offences being committed by the petitioners either under the Explosive Act or under the Indian Penal Code but this much can be said that the prosecution under the E.C. Act against the petitioners is bad in the eye of law. 10. Hence, both the petitions are hereby allowed and the criminal prosecution in GR No. 1808/92 and cognizance thereof under Section 7 of the E.C. Act alone is hereby quashed having held the same to be bad in the eye of law.