JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, the Senior learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Through this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.6.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur in Bahera P.S. Case No. 112 of 2007, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act"). 3. The prosecution was set in motion when the Block Supply Officer, Benipur, submitted his written report dated 12.6.2007 to the Officer Incharge, Bahera P.S., inter alia, alleging that in course of raid of the godown of the petitioner 142 bags of rice and 58 bags of wheat each containing 50 Kgs. approximately and all the bags were printed with the seal of Food Corporation of India and were machine stitched. It is said that it was suspected that the foodgrain belonging to Government Scheme had been stored there for purpose of sale in the blackmarket. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the seized rice and wheat in question. It has also been stated that the building from which the foodgrain were seized jointly belongs to the petitioner, Satyadev Mandal and Sadhu Nayak and about 15 years back this petitioner purchased only the western most room of the building and Sadhu Nayak had purchased only one room east to the petitioner while Satyadev Mandal had purchased the eastern two rooms from one Babu Narain Jha through separate sale deeds. It was further submitted that the present case has been registered only on the basis of suspicion. 5. This application is fit to be allowed on the following grounds stated hereinbelow: The F.I.R. does not disclose as to which Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act has been violated. Section 7 of E.C. Act deals with the persons who contravene any Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act thereof but when the F.I.R. does not disclose which Order made under Section 3 of E.C. Act has been contravened no prosecution lies. 6. Secondly mere allegation that the articles seized was purportedly for the purposes of blackmarketing is not complete in the prosecution. 6. Secondly mere allegation that the articles seized was purportedly for the purposes of blackmarketing is not complete in the prosecution. The element of sale being also absent the allegation of black- marketing is not complete. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above the prosecution of the petitioners herein would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.