JUDGMENT : D.K. SINHA, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent, jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of their entire criminal proceedings as well as the order dated 06.09.2005 by which the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/411 I.P.C. against them in Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 08 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 69 of 2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the Officer-in-Charge of Barkagaon Police Station in his written statement addressed to the C.J.M., Hazariabagh narrated that he received the telephonic message that huge quantity of rice packets and wheat packets which were meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System were being sold in the black-market, pursuant to such information he with the police party went to village Harii and seized about 17 packets of rice and 13 packets of wheat each packet containing 50 K.G. each from the godown of the shop of one Doman Mahto. The informant further alleged that 3 packets of rice and 7 packets of wheat were recovered from the godown of Sohar Mahto and in that manner total 37 packets of rice and wheat were seized in presence of the witnesses by the police. All the packets were brought to the police station and in the same sequence the dealers namely Jagarnath Sao, Chintaman Kushwaha & Kundan Kumar were also asked to make themselves available at the police station for interrogation who are the petitioners herein. In course of investigation by the informant as well as by the Supply Inspector it was gathered, the informant narrated that the petitioners had been carrying food-grains viz. rice packet and the wheat packets from the godown of Food Corporation of India, Keredari on 07.01.2005 to be distributed amongst the red card holders of Barkagaon under the Antoyday Scheme. The truck was being driven by the driver Deepak Kumar Singh but on the way all the 3 petitioners i.e. the dealers sold 48 packets of rice and wheat to Doman Mahto and Sohar Mahto at village Harli and only 137 packets could be recovered and seized though the truck was carrying 191 packets of rice and wheat of all the 3 petitioners who were the dealers. The case was instituted for the alleged offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioners and also against Doman Mahto and Sonar Mahto. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners were arrested by the police and later on admitted to bail. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the alleged offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. Advancing his argument, learned Counsel submitted that the investigation was supervised by the Dy. S.P., Hazaribagh who in his supervision note observed that the petitioners were falsely implicated. As a matter of fact, one of the prosecution witnesses was demanding money and when the petitioner refused to oblige, the case was instituted. The defence of the petitioner Chintaman Kushwaha was that he was unloading the rice and wheat packets to be carried to his P.D.S. shop on bullock cart as the truck could not go to his shop but in the meantime he was intercepted by the police party on false premise. It would be evident from the entire fact and the materials in the case diary that no ingredient for the alleged offence u/s 411 or 406 I.P.C could be attracted against any of the petitioners who were admittedly the P.D.S. dealers and that when the prosecution of the petitioners was initiated under special law contained in Section 7 of the E.C. Act, the provisions of general law under the I.P.C could not be attracted and was not maintainable. The cognizance of the offence was taken mechanically by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh only u/s 406/411 I.P.C. without application of judicial mind as such impugned order calls for interference. 5. Advancing his argument, learned Counsel pointed out that though the charge-sheet was submitted u/s 7 of the E.C. Act against all the accused persons pending investigation against one of-the accused Deepak Kumar Singh but before the cognizance of the offence could be taken by the learned C.J.M. a corrigendum was filed before, the C.J.M., Hazaribagh requesting that in place of the alleged offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioners in the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer made a request that the charge-sheet could be treated against the accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 406/411 I.P.C. under the instruction of the Superintendent of Police. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence on the aforesaid request without application of judicial mind on the same set of materials in the case diary for which charge sheet was filed for the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. 6. Learned C.J.M. even grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that if the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act could not be attracted against the petitioners then how simply on the corrigendum of the Investigating Officer he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/411 I.P.C. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh after perusal of the case record and having been satisfied with the materials on the record found it to be a fit case for taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/411 I.P.C. against the petitioners after application of judicial mind which in the facts and circumstances needs no interference as the petitioners were found indulged in disposing of the packets of rice and wheat which were to be distributed amongst the red card holders thereby caused criminal breach of trust. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I failed to understand as to how the C.J.M. appreciated the corrigendum placed by the Investigating Officer for conversion of the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act to one under the alleged offence under Sections 406/411 I.P.C. on the same set of materials collected in course of investigation and placed in the case diary. However, the State has not challenged the impugned order of taking cognizance and in the facts and circumstances I find that if at all any offence, prima facie, is made out against the petitioners herein, subject to the evidence collected in course of trial and without prejudice to the merit of the case it could be u/s 406 I.P.C. and not u/s 411 I.P.C. 9. In view of such observation, this petition is dismissed as the learned Counsel failed to convince this Court that the criminal prosecution of the petitioners was illegal. In the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to stand charge only u/s 406 I.P.C. and to face trial. With such modification, this petition is dismissed.