JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 25.07.1997 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Patna in Special Case No. 1 of 1997, taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . 3. Admittedly the Drug Inspector, Patna lodged the complaint against the petitioner, stating therein that M/S Bishwanath Balkrishna, Bhagwati Laxmi Bazar Chowk, Patna City purchased a formulation in question that Tetracycline Eyeointment - 3 gm, Batch No. T-10-207 and T-10-208, manufactured by Pilco Pharma Pvt. Ltd. From M/S Gulati Enterprises (accused No. 2 non-petitioner) against Invoice No. E-34 dated 15.5.1995 @ Rs. Twenty One per box containing twenty tubes, minus seven percent discount and special discount of seven percent thereof, that comes to Rs. Eighteen, Paise Six for twenty tubes (photocopy of purchased invoice was annexed as Annexure-A with the complaint). 4. Further it is said that M/Satendra is a computer operator. Biswanath Balkrishna, Bhagwati Bazar, Chowk, Patna City sold Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment-3 gm. to M/S T.T. Pharmaceuticals, Patna against Bill No. 1053 dated 26.09.1995 @ Rs. Three, Paisa Fifty per tub, plus local taxes extra, which comes to Rs. Seventy per pack containing twenty tubes, plus local taxes extra (photocopy of the bill was enclosed as Annexure-B). It is also alleged that on basis of the price list, the price of Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment, one tube comes to Rs. One Paise Three per tube, but it is being sold at the price higher than the price indicated in the price list and charging extra price Rs. Two, Paise Forty Seven, plus local taxes i.e. Paise Seventeen per tube, violating Paragraph 16 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, which is punishable under Section 24 of the order read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . 5. The complaint petition further contain that accused No. 2, non-petitioner, appointed as stockiest for M/S Pilco Pharma Pvt. Ltd., on basis of the above fact the complainant asked to produce purchased document and price list of formulation in question i.e. Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment vide Letter No. 592 dated 21.09.1996, but it was not produced (copy of letter was enclosed as Annexure-D with the complaint). Subsequently at the directions of the Drug Controller, Bihar, Patna, prosecution report was submitted through Letter No. 1097(15) dated 10.07.1996 (copy of the same was enclosed as Annexure-E with the complaint). Accordingly, the complaint was filed for violation of Paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995. 6. Subsequent to submission of the complaint cognizance was taken by impugned order by the court below, which is under challenge. During course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is whole saler, he sold the commodity @ Rs. Three Paise, Five per tube to the retailer, but paragraph 16 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 deals with the consumer, it has got no concern with the sale to the retailer and as per price list dated 01.04.1996 as Annexure-4, no wrong was committed besides there is no averment in the complaint petition, attracting application of Paragraph 20 of the order. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned order submitted that both the accused persons including the petitioner have violated the law specially paragraphs 16, 19 and 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) order, 1955. 7. During course of argument, while going through the present application, especially Annexure-1, the complaint petition filed against two named accused (non-petitioner) including the petitioner, it appears that the copy of complaint petition produced before this Court as Annexure-1, is incomplete. None of the Annexures mentioned therein as Annexure A to E, forming part of the complaint petition were filed/produced by the petitioner, in absence thereof it is difficult to appreciate the entire complaint and averments made therein. 8. Non-production of complete copy of complaint petition, which is under challenge, itself disentitles the petitioner from any relief, specially sought to be granted under extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court. 9. In view of the above without going to merit of the case, this application stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate his points, if any before the court below at appropriate stage and the court concerned shall without being prejudiced of instant non-interference decide the case and the materials produced, on its own merit.