JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the FIR of Islampur Town P.S. Case No. 159/2006 for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that on 12.12.2006 the Supply Inspector, Islampur, District-Nalanda made a report to the Officer Incharge that he was informed that a tractor was carrying kerosene oil. The tractor was intercepted and ten drums of kerosene oil was seized. On the date on which the tractor was seized, no one came forward to claim the kerosene oil. Later, it appears that the petitioners name transpired on the basis of some evidence in which it was stated that the kerosene oil belonged to the petitioner and on that basis the petitioner was made accused in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed on 15.1.2009 in the case of Usha Devi vs. State of Bihar in Cr. Misc. No. 44286/2007. It has been noticed by the court while passing the order that clause 31(1)(c) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 excludes the applicability of the offences to a P.D.S. dealer appointed by the State Government which means that the P.D.S. dealer would not be prosecuted for having in their possession the articles covered under the Control Order, 1984. 5. The Central Government has framed the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 under the Essential Commodities Act. The State Government was required to issue necessary notification for implementation thereof in accordance with law. Such notification admittedly was issued and came into effect on 15.2.2007. Clause 17 of this notification stated that all prosecution initiated prior to 15.2.2007 shall continue to be governed in accordance with the law at the time when the occurrence took place. The petitioner, therefore, would be protected under the Control Order, 1984. 6. The second aspect of the matter is that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was in possession of kerosene oil. The offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would require that the petitioner should have actually indulged in blackmarketing. Merely carrying kerosene oil on a tractor does not mean that the petitioner was indulging in blackmarketing of kerosene oil. The offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would require that the petitioner should have actually indulged in blackmarketing. Merely carrying kerosene oil on a tractor does not mean that the petitioner was indulging in blackmarketing of kerosene oil. The allegation that it was being carried for the purpose of blackmarketing is an inference which has been drawn by the prosecuting agency and is based on conjecture and surmises and is not enough to prosecute the petitioner. 7. Accordingly I quash the order, dated 1.4.2008 passed in Islampur Town P.S. Case No. 159/2006 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa by which cognizance for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial. 8. This application is, thus allowed.