Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This application by petitioners has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya on 3.6.2004 in Alipore Police Station Case No. 4 of 2004 u/s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act (In short "E.C. Act") and under Secs. 409/34 of Indian Penal Code (In short " Indian Penal Code, 1860 "). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written report of Block Development Officer, Tekari forwarding the report of Director, Accounts, Public Administration and Self Employment, District Rural Development Organisation, Gaya, a first information report under Secs. 409/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 7 of EC Act was drawn against opposite party No. 2 and co-accused Kulwansh Das. The allegation is that co accused Kulwansh Das, a fair price dealer was supplied 220 quintals of rice for the years, 2001-02 and 2002-03 under Rural Employment Scheme. Shri Shiv Kumar Das, son of co accused Kulwansh Das in writing admitted that entire 220 quintals of rice was kept in the Panchayat Bhawan of Bishunpur and key was left with opposite party No. 2 and he also admitted that entire rice, instead of distributing it among labourers in connivance with opposite party No. 2, was sold in black marketing. Director, Public Accounts and Self Employment, District Rural Development Organization, Gaya perused the stock register of co-accused Kulwansh Das and found that receipt of rice was mentioned there but its distribution was not shown in the register and son of Kulwansh Das produced photo copy of a receipt bearing signature of opposite party No. 2 admitting the receipt of 102 quinatals of rice. The impugned order shows that opposite party No. 2 surrendered on 3.6.2004 before the Court of Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate where considering the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that sec. 7 of EC Act is bailable and sec. 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted against him, he was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each. 7 of EC Act is bailable and sec. 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted against him, he was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each. The case of petitioners is that petitioners No. 1,3, 4 and 10 are labourers, petitioner No. 2 is farmer and petitioners No. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are Ward Members of Chaita Panchayat and on 3.6.2004, Chief Judicial Magistrate was on leave and Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate was holding the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the submission made on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that Sec. 7 of EC Act is bailable is not correct because all offences under Sec. 7 of EC Act are non-bailable as enumerated u/s. 10A of EC Act, 1955 and finding of the Court below is not in consonance with the provisions of EC Act and impugned order granting bail to opposite party No. 2 on the wrong assumption that sec. 7 of EC Act is bailable is an abuse of process of Court and is fit to be set aside. About acceptance of plea of opposite party No. 2 before the Court below that sec. 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted in this case, the case of petitioners is that this section is also attracted against opposite party No. 2 because opposite party No. 2 is duly elected Mukhiya of Chaita Panchayat and he had received 220 quintals of rice for its distribution among labourers but he sold the same in black marketing and this act on his part amounts to criminal breach of trust. The petitioners have further stated that the impugned order further shows that learned Special Public Prosecutor who appeared on behalf of the State conceded to the submissions made on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in a surrender-cum-bail petition but then only Advocate General is empowered to give any concession and in the instant case, no instruction was given to Special Public Prosecutor to concede. On the aforesaid grounds, petitioners have prayed for cancelling the bail of opposite party No. 2 granted to him on 3.6.2004 by Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. 3. On the aforesaid grounds, petitioners have prayed for cancelling the bail of opposite party No. 2 granted to him on 3.6.2004 by Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. 3. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared and has filed counter-affidavit opposing the prayer of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have to locus standi to maintain the present application for cancellation of bail because they are neither the informant nor witnesses in this case and they are in no way concerned with the prosecution case. According to opposite party No. 2, petitioners are tools in the hands of political party, rival to opposite party No. 2 because opposite party No. 2 is an elected Mukhiya and the present application has been filed at the behest of the person who lost the Mukhiyas election. The further case of opposite party No. 2 is that 102 quintals of rice was in stock and rest foodgrains was distributed against the food for work scheme and petitioner is an old man aged about 70 years and has an unblemished career of social worker and public representative as he is the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat from the very inception of Panchayat till date and he has never lost the election. Opposite party No. 2 has prayed for refusing the prayer of petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, by relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pandit Dnyanu Kot V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (3) East Cr C 166 (SC), argued that if a person is illegally or erroneously released on bail, his bail can be cancelled by passing appropriate orders u/s. 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short "Cr P C"). It is true that exercising special powers u/s. 439 of Cr PC, a High Court or a Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXIII be arrested and may commit him to custody but then the facts of the present case are quite different than the facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel of petitioners. In that case, an accused was released on bail u/s. 167(2) of Cr PC in a case u/s. 302 and some other allied sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. In that case, an accused was released on bail u/s. 167(2) of Cr PC in a case u/s. 302 and some other allied sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 27 of Arms Act on 89th day of his custody that is before expiry of 90 days which was the required period for his release u/s. 167(2) of Cr PC. Except non-submission of chargesheet, there was no other ground for release of accused in that case and when it was found that he was released on 89th day of his custody by invoking the provisions of sec. 167(2) of CrPC, his bail was cancelled. Once it was found that he was not entitled to be released on bail u/s. 167(2) of Cr PC question of considering other grounds of his bail did not arise because there was no such plea. In the present case, opposite party No. 2 surrendered and prayed for bail with a number of submissions including that sec. 7 of EC Act was bailable. After hearing his arguments he was granted bail by the Court below. It is true that in the impugned order, Court below has observed that sec. 7 of EC Act is bailable which according to the petitioners is non-bailable and this submission of learned counsel of petitioners has not been challenged on behalf of opposite party No. 2 but this was not the only ground on which opposite party No. 2 was granted bail. In the first information report itself, it is stated that the foodgrains was released in favour of co- accused Kulwansh Singh and in the first information report, it is further stated that son of co-accused Kulwansh Singh produced a photo copy of receipt bearing the signature of opposite party No. 2 admitting the receipt of 102 quintals of rice. The learned counsel of opposite party No. 2 submits that 102 quintals of rice is still kept in Panchayat Bhawan. Though in the impugned order, the aforesaid facts have not been mentioned in so many words but then impugned order shows that submission on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that Secs. 409/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted against the petitioners and is against co-accused Kulwansh Das finds mention. Though in the impugned order, the aforesaid facts have not been mentioned in so many words but then impugned order shows that submission on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that Secs. 409/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted against the petitioners and is against co-accused Kulwansh Das finds mention. Taking into consideration the allegation as made in the first information report and submissions of petitioners, it appears that it was a fit case for grant of bail and now no purpose will be served by cancelling the bail of opposite party No. 2 and asking him to move again for bail before the Court below which, in my opinion, will be wastage of time of Court below also. Admittedly none of the petitioners is informant and it is a State case and no body from State has come forward for a making prayer of cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2. I, therefore, find no merit in this application which is, accordingly dismissed.