Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered for offence under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code and Section 7 of the E.C. Act on the allegation that on 13.6.2007 four trucks loaded with wheat were found parked in premises namely M/s Sree Durga Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Limited Tekuna Farm Industrial Area, Gaya. On verification, it was found that wheat was lifted under Anatodaya Scheme, F.C.I. & S.F.C., Gaya and was to be delivered at B.S.F.C., Nawadah and Bodh Gaya but instead it was being unloaded in the aforesaid premises for the purpose of its black marketing and in fact wheat of one of the four trucks was already unloaded. Further on inspection 552 bags of wheat contained in F.C.I, bags bearing monogram "Bhartiya Khad Nigam" were found in the mill premises. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a transporter of Bihar State Food Civil Supplies Corporation, Gaya for transporting the foodgrains from one godown to other in the district of Gaya. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lacs by way of Demand Draft and Bank Guarantee and had also provided collateral security of Rs. 15 lacs. It is further submitted that 220 bags of wheat each of 50 Kgs was loaded from the F.C.I, for its transportation to different godowns of B.S.F.C. in Bodh Gaya. The petitioner on enquiry learnt that the driver parked his truck in a Petrol Pump for diesel which unfortunately was situated by the side of Durga Flour Mills in between Gaya and Bodh Gaya. It is submitted that it is not correct to say that the truck was found inside the Durga Flour Mills. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even assuming the truck was taken in the Mill premises for unloading the wheat illegally, the petitioner who is a transporter cannot be made responsible as it is not possible for him to be present either at the time of taking delivery or to be present during the course of movement all the time. He further submits that there is enough financial safe guard in the agreement against the transporter if the goods are lost or does not reach its place of destination. He further submits that there is enough financial safe guard in the agreement against the transporter if the goods are lost or does not reach its place of destination. In such circumstances if the goods do not reach its destination the petitioner would be liable to forfeit its Demand Draft and Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs and also collateral security of Rs. 15 lacs depending upon the value of loss caused. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the transporter cannot escape wrongs and illegality committed by his driver as he acts on behalf of his Principal. As such the transporterr would be also vicariously liable for being diverting the goods for the purpose of black marketing. 6. Learned counsel submits that the Bihar Trade Articles Unification Order, 1984 stands superseded by Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (in short Control Order, 2001) promulgated by the Central Government. On 15.2.2007 the Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar issued notification stating that Governor of Bihar with prior concurrence of the Central Government have made certain orders in connection with the fair price shop as to the issuance of licence as well as the terms and conditions regulating the distribution of Essential Commodities. Clause 16 of the Order contained in the notification dated 15.2.2007 reads as follows: Clause-16: Exemption: The provisions of "Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001" shall not be applicable to the purchase, sale or storage for sale of any trade article by or on behalf of: (i) The Central Government; (ii) The State Government; (iii) The Officers, Departments, Institution or other organisation of the State Government or such agencies approved by the State Government; (iv) Any Central of State Level Cooperative Society (except the P.D.S. Shops)." Relying Clause 16 of the above notification, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation is an organ of the State Government and as such exempted from the rigours of Control Order, 2001 as well as penal consequences under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. He further submits that the private transporter appointed by the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation would also become agent of the State Government. 7 This court is unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that the private transporter appointed by the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation would also become agent of the State Government. 7 This court is unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is no doubt true that Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation is an organ of the State Government as the officials of the State Government control and manage the Corporation and the Government takes care of its financial implication. By virtue of Clause 16 the officers or employees of the Corporation stands exempted from the provisions of the Control Order, 2001 but the same exemption under no stretch of interpretation can be extended to a hired transporter. A private transporter appointed by a Corporation can in no way be deemed to be officers of the State Government or the Corporation. The transporter works under agreement/contract entered with B.S.F.C.S.C. or B.S.F.C. in short as it is generally referred, for transporting the foodgrains from the F.C.I, or S.F.C. of State Government to other S.F.C. godowns of the State Government. A transporter works more as a contractor under the agreement than as an agent. Even assuming that a transporter appointed by the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation is its agent, it cannot enjoy the privilege of exemption as the same is not extended to a private agent of the Corporation or for that matter any other agency unless and until the same is specifically approved by the State Government for the said purpose. Further more as per Clause 16, the exemption is for officers and integral employees of the department, institution and organisation of Government and it does not extend to private agent/contractor of Corporation including transporter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wheat being a decontrolled item since 2002 and also being deleted from the list of Essential Commodities Act the petitioner cannot be booked under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 9. This court finds that this case has also been instituted under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code apart from Section 7 of the E.C. Act and investigation is going on. 10. 9. This court finds that this case has also been instituted under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code apart from Section 7 of the E.C. Act and investigation is going on. 10. I find that the petitioner cannot escape from his liability as the goods lifted from the S.F.C. and F.C.I, instead of being taken to its destination has been diverted in the premises of flour mill by its driver who was taken into custody. It would be primarily transporter who would be responsible and vicariously liable if the goods is diverted for illegal purposes. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. He may surrender and pray for regular bail which will be considered preferably on the same day on its own merits and also taking into consideration the facts noted above. 12. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner.