Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.- Originally, the petitioners filed the present application for quashing of the First Information Report, in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 38 of 1999 dated 28.05.1999 (G.R.Case No. 866 of 1999) registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, against the petitioners. By order dated 15.07.1999 this application was admitted for final hearing, but no order for stay of the investigation of the case by the Police was passed. It appears that during the pendency of the present application, the Police submitted chargesheet, after completion of the investigation and, accordingly, the learned Special Judge by his order dated 13.01.2000, took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners, finding a prima facie case, for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. 2. The petitioners by filing a supplementary affidavit have also challenged the order taking cognizance and it appears that by order dated 27.03.2000 this Court stayed the further proceedings of the court below in connection with the aforesaid case. 3. The facts of the matter, in short are that the Block Supply Officer, Gola lodged First Information Report against the petitioners on 28.05.1999 alleging therein that on 27.05.1999, the informant alongwith other officials, raided the business premises of the petitioners and at that time the petitioner No.1 Ram Chandra Prasad Agarwal was present. He opened the Godown himself. On physical verification of Godown 177 quintals of Rice, 6.75 quintals of Mustard Oil, 3 quintals of Gur were found for which no paper regarding sale and purchase was produced by the accused persons. However, it was disclosed that there was a shop situated nearby, belonging to Bhanu Prasad Agarwal (Petitioner No.3) who was having a retail licence for foodgrain bearing no. 5/91 but he did not show the licence. He further disclosed that Bhanu Prasad Agarwal did not reside there but on his licence his son, namely, Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Petitioner No.2) and he himself i.e. petitioner No.1 were doing business. The informant further stated that the petitioners had taken a godown in the house of one Ganesh Master, in which he had stacked Rice and from that place he was doing business of wholesale without issuing any cash memo etc. The informant further stated that the petitioners had taken a godown in the house of one Ganesh Master, in which he had stacked Rice and from that place he was doing business of wholesale without issuing any cash memo etc. It was alleged that at the time of physical verification, petitioner No.1 was present but at the time of putting signature in the Seizure list he fled away and after some time his son Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Petitioner No.2) appeared, who signed the Seizure list and took the Zimmanama of the seized goods. It was also alleged that the petitioners have also not displayed the price and stock of the articles kept in the godown. In view of the above facts it was alleged that the petitioners stored Rice and Edible Oil beyond the prescribed limit fixed by the State of Bihar and they were doing business in foodgrains and Edible Oils without having licence and thereby contravened the Government orders punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.D. Agarwal has firstly submitted that the Central Government by issuing Notification being No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10th November, 1997 made certain amendments in the Central Order, namely, Pulses, Edible Oils seeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977 by deleting certain provisions in respect of Edible Oils seeds and Edible Oil. A copy of the said notification has been annexed as Annexure-3. It is submitted, that pursuant to the said amendment, as contained in Annexure-3, the Central Government requested all the State Governments to amend their respective orders in respect of Edible Oil and Edible Oil seeds. Accordingly, it was submitted that in view of the Notification No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 as contained in Annexure-3, no licence under Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, was required to be taken to deal in Edible Oils. It was further urged, that there being no storage limit on the Edible Oils and as such, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged recovery of 6.75 quintals of Mustard oil was bad. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision in Mali Ram Agarwal vs. State of Bihar report in 2001 (1) East. Cr.C. (24) has submitted that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the aforesaid decision. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision in Mali Ram Agarwal vs. State of Bihar report in 2001 (1) East. Cr.C. (24) has submitted that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the aforesaid decision. 5. Before dealing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to notice the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and of relevant Central/State Order. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Parliament empowered the Central Government to make orders and to issue notifications in respect of the essential commodities, and under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act the Central Government has delegated the power to the State Governments to make orders or to issue notifications under Section 3 of the Act. The Central Government has issued Pulses, Edible Oil seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977. Under Clause 2(b)(c) and (d) the categories of the cities have been defined according to their population under Category 'A' 'B' and 'C', Clause 2 (f), Clause 2 (l) and Clause 2 (nb) define a dealer, a retailer and a whole seller respectively. 6. Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 deals with the provision of licensing of dealers regarding carrying on business of purchase and sale or storage for sale of any of the Trade Articles maintained in the Schedule 1 of the said Order. Schedule 1 of the Licences Unification Order, 1984 has been bifurcated in 5 parts, namely, Part 'A' for foodgrains, Part 'B' for Pulses, Part 'c' for Oilseeds, Part 'D' for Edible Oils and Part 'E' for other articles. Wheat and Rice which come under the category for foodgrains have been mentioned in Part 'A', whereas Mustard Oil which comes under Edible Oils has been mentioned in Part 'B' of Schedule 1. In the present case, we are concerned with Rice and Mustard Oil which have been seized, which are enumerated in Part 'A' and Part 0' of Schedule 1. 7. According to Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, a person dealing in the foodgrains and Edible Oils mentioned in the Schedule is required to have a licence for doing business. 8. 7. According to Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, a person dealing in the foodgrains and Edible Oils mentioned in the Schedule is required to have a licence for doing business. 8. On perusal of the judgment of the Mali Ram Agarwal vs. State of Bihar (supra), it appears that the decision was rendered relying on the decision in the case of Pritam Lal Yadav & Others vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1982 P.L.J.R. (304) wherein it was held that the Central Government is competent to withdraw or repeal any order or regulation that was issued by the State Government in the capacity of delegate of the Central Government and accepting the same analogy, it was held that the State Order in respect of Edible Oil stands repealed and the State Government notification ceased to be effective from the date, the Central Government issued notification repealing the same. In the case of Pritam Lal Agarwal vs. State of Bihar reported in 1982 P.L.J.R. (304), the Division Bench was considering the effect of the notification of the Central Government being S.O. 696 (E) dated 30.09.1977, whereby the Central Government repealed all notifications issued by the State Government regulating the movement of Rice and Paddy. For ready reference being S.O. No. 696 (E) dated 30.09.1977 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), No. 423, dated September 30, 1977. For ready reference being S.O. No. 696 (E) dated 30.09.1977 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), No. 423, dated September 30, 1977. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation S.O. 696 (E) New Delhi, the 30th September, 1977.-ln exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby rescinds with effect from the 1st day of October, 1977 :- (i) the Orders issued by it as specified in Schedule A. (ii) the Orders issued by the State Governments as specified in Schedule B, and (iii) any other Order issued by the State Government and in force, in relation to matters concerning regulation of or restriction/prohibition on movement of rice or paddy : Provided that such rescission shall not affect:- (a) the previous operation of the said Orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder, or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said Orders; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the said Orders; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid. and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the said orders had not been rescinded. Schedule A 1. The Manipur Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order. 1956. 2. The Bombay Rice (Export Control) Order, 1957. 3. The Rice (Restrictions on Rail-Bookings) Order. 1957. 4. The Bihar Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957. 5. The Madhya Pradesh Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1957. 6. The Tripura Foodgrains (Movement Control (No.2) Order, 1959. 7. The Southern Rice Zone (Restriction on Rail-Booking) Order, 1960. 8. The West Bengal Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964. 9. The Orissa Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964. 10. The Foodgrains Movement Restriction (Exemption to Food Corporation of India) Order, 1966. 11. The Northern Rice Zone (Movement Control) Order, 1968. 12. The Punjab and Haryana Paddy (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1968. 13. The Foodgrains Movement Restrictions (Exemption of Seeds) Order, 1970. 14. The Gujarat and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Rice (Export) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order, 1975. 15. The Rice and Paddy (Southern Zone) Movement Control Order, 1976. Schedule B 1. 11. The Northern Rice Zone (Movement Control) Order, 1968. 12. The Punjab and Haryana Paddy (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1968. 13. The Foodgrains Movement Restrictions (Exemption of Seeds) Order, 1970. 14. The Gujarat and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Rice (Export) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order, 1975. 15. The Rice and Paddy (Southern Zone) Movement Control Order, 1976. Schedule B 1. The Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961 2. The Goa, Daman and Diu Rice (Export Control) Order, 1963 3. The Maharasthra Foodgrains (Export Control) Order, 1966. 4. The Haryana Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1968. 5. The Kerala Rice (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1966. 6. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Paddy and Rice (Price Fixation and Movement Restriction) Order, 1967. 7. The Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1968. 8. The West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1968. 9. The West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement by Night) Order, 1969. 10. The Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Movement) Order, 1970. 11. The Meghalaya Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1972. 12. The Madhya Pradesh Rice (Restriction on Transport by Rail, Road and Water) Order, 1974. 13. The Arunachal Pradesh Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1975. 14. The Mizoram Rice (Licensing and Control) Order, 1976. 15. The Pondicherry Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1976. 16. The Uttar Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Levy, Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1976. 17. The Rajasthan Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1977." On a plain reading of the above notification S.O. 696 (E) dated 30.09.1997, it is clear that by this very notification, the Central Government itself rescinded the orders issued by it as specified in Schedule A and also the orders issued by the State Government as specified in Schedule 'B' and any other Order issued by the State Government in relation to matters concerning regulation of or restriction/prohibition on movement of Rice or Paddy. Therefore, the Division Bench in the case of Pritam Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar (supra) held that the notification No. 12804 S.C. dated 30.06.1966 and G.S.R. No. 151 dated 20.03.1968 restricting the movement of Rice and Paddy by the State Government stood repealed. Therefore, the Division Bench in the case of Pritam Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar (supra) held that the notification No. 12804 S.C. dated 30.06.1966 and G.S.R. No. 151 dated 20.03.1968 restricting the movement of Rice and Paddy by the State Government stood repealed. No doubt, that Central Government is competent to withdraw or repeal any order or regulation issued by the State Government but from the notification No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10th November, 1997, it would appear that the Central Government did not repeal or rescind the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977, rather by the notification No.S.O. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 only omitted the Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils from the Central Order, 1977 without rescinding or omitting, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils from the State Orders. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because the Central Government has omitted the Edible Oils and Oilseeds from the Central Order and, therefore, it would be deemed that the Edible Oils and Oilseeds have also been rescinded or omitted from the purview of Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. Unless and until Schedule 1 of Part B of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 is accordingly amended and the Edible Oils and Oilseeds are omitted, it cannot be accepted that no licence is required to be taken for carrying on business of sale and purchase or storage for sale of the Edible Oils. Nothing has been brought on record to show that pursuant to the Notification No. S.O. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 Part B of Schedule 1 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 has also been amended and the Edible Oils mentioned in Part 'D' of Schedule 1 including that of Mustard Oil have been omitted from the purview of Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. It is relevant to note here that by G.S.R. No. 49 dated 17.10.1985 and by subsequent amendments, the storage limit of the foodgrains, Pulses, Edible Oils and Oilseeds etc. have been fixed and, therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no licence for carrying on business in Edible Oils is required, after the notification of the Central Government i.e. S.O. No. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 and that no storage limit has been fixed, cannot be accepted. have been fixed and, therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no licence for carrying on business in Edible Oils is required, after the notification of the Central Government i.e. S.O. No. 772 (E) dated 10.11.1997 and that no storage limit has been fixed, cannot be accepted. Therefore, in my view, the decisions rendered in Mali Ram Agarwal's Case (supra) is distinguishable and the case in hand is neither covered by decision in Mali Ram Agarwal's case reported in [2001 (1) E.Cr.Cases 24] nor the decision reported in [1982 P.L.J.R. 304] and, therefore, the said decisions are of no help to the petitioner. 9. Secondly, it was submitted in this regard that under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 stock limit has been fixed in respect of 'A', 'B' and 'C' classes of cities for Edible Oils but 'A', 'B' and 'C' classes of cities have not been defined in the Unification Order, 1984 and, therefore, the dealer does not know under which category his city falls. 10. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is relevant to quote Clause 14 of G.S.R.No. 49 dated 17.10.1985 :- "The term 'B' class cities shall, for the purposes of this order exclude the provisions relating to pulses, edible oilseeds and edible oils include the cities of Hazaribagh, Gaya, Bhagalpur, Saharsa, Dumka, Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur, Chapra, Monghyr, Purnea, Samastipur, Begusarai, Arrah, Sasaram, Motihari, Betiah, Katihar and Siwan [and Patna, Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur or cities having population of 3 lakhs and more but less than 10 lakhs as determined in 1981 census]." 11. From perusal of the aforesaid notification i.e. G.S.R. No. 49 dated 17.10.1985, it can very well be said that a dealer definitely will be able to know that under which category his city actually falls. In that view of the matter, the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. 12. From perusal of the aforesaid notification i.e. G.S.R. No. 49 dated 17.10.1985, it can very well be said that a dealer definitely will be able to know that under which category his city actually falls. In that view of the matter, the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on Annexure-5 to the application has thirdly submitted that by issue of letter dated 27.01.1995, under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has intimated to the Vice-President of Federation of All India Foodgrains Dealers Association that the Central Government has decided to abolish the stock limit of Wheat and Rice and released them from the purview of the licences and as such, it was submitted that since the stock limit in respect of Rice has been abolished no licence was required to be taken, for carrying on business of Wheat and Rice and, therefore, the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and Display Order were not attracted in the present case. Consequently, no prosecution for recovery of and seizure of 177 quintals of Rice could have been initiated. 13. So far as the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I hold that only because the Central Government has decided to exclude Wheat and Rice from the purview of licensing does not and cannot mean that automatically Part 'A' of the Schedule 1 of the Unification Order, 1984 regarding foodgrains has been amended and the words Wheat and Rice have been deleted from Part A of Schedule of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. It is important to note that the letter issued by the Government of India G.S.R. No. 11 dated 11th September, 1997, the Government of Bihar made certain amendments in Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and amended Part 'A' Schedule 1 of the said order and the words Wheat and Wheat Products excluding 'Husk' and 'Bran' were inserted. 14. It is important to note that the letter issued by the Government of India G.S.R. No. 11 dated 11th September, 1997, the Government of Bihar made certain amendments in Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and amended Part 'A' Schedule 1 of the said order and the words Wheat and Wheat Products excluding 'Husk' and 'Bran' were inserted. 14. From the above amendment made on 11.09.1997 by G.S.R. No. 11, it is clear that the word Wheat and Wheat Products were kept intact and only 'Husk' and 'Bran' were excluded and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no licence for carrying on business in Wheat or Rice is required to be taken under Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 cannot be accepted. 15. Fourthly, it was submitted that since the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 by which the Special Judges (E.C.) Act were conferred jurisdiction to entertain the cases under the E.C. Act has since been expired and, therefore, the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Hazaribagh had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged and, therefore, the order taking cognizance was illegal and without jurisdiction. 16. Regarding the fourth submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu vs. Paramsiva Pandian reported in A.I.R. 2001 (3) S.C. 2972, has already held that after the expiry of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the jurisdiction to try the cases under the Essential Commodities Act has been restored to the Judicial Magistrates having competent jurisdiction. Therefore, on this ground the criminal prosecution against the petitioners cannot be quashed. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly submitted that for violation of price and Display Order no sanction as required under the proviso of Clause 6 of the Display Orders has been obtained before launching the prosecution and, therefore, in absence of sanction, the First Information Report could not have been lodged against the petitioners. 18. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be correct. 18. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be correct. However, even if it is accepted, that no sanction has been obtained in the present case under proviso to Clause 6 of the Display Order, then also at best the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence for not displaying the price and stock of the Rice and Edible Oil seized from their godown in violation of the aforesaid Price and Stock Display Order, but so far as the allegations for commission of the offence for carrying on business of sale and purchase or storage for sale of Rice and Edible Oils without having licence and for storing the said articles more than the limit fixed, remains intact and for which the petitioners can't escape from the prosecution for commission of those offences. 19. In view of my discussions and findings above, I do not find any merit in this application, it is, accordingly, dismissed.