JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The prayer made in this application is to quash the prosecution case relating to Special Case No. 37 of 1998 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act pending in the court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Patna. Admittedly, no order of cognizance is under challenge and this application has been filed mainly for quashing of the FIR itself. 3. The first submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Annexure-2 would show that vegetable oil and mustard oil seized from the godown were subjected to purity test and the report of the analyst found the samples to be genuine and unadulterated. 4. No doubt, Annexure-2 is a letter dated 7.9.1998 issued by the Local Health Authority informing the petitioner about genuineness of samples obtained from petitioners premises on 31.8.1998 which is the date of occurrence mentioned in the FIR lodged by the Marketing Officer, Patna Division, Patna. But there is no mention of any purchase of samples for the purpose of being sent for chemical examination and the FIR of present case is only under Section 7 of the E.C. Act with an allegation that godown register and other papers required to be kept under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 were not produced in spite of information sent to the petitioner and hence the provisions of the Unification Order had been violated for which case under Section 7 of the EC Act was required to be instituted. The FIR further mentions that during the search and seizure operation in the godown allegedly belonging to the petitioner, an insecticide was found in open packets which according to allegation is used for mixing with oil to create the scent and taste of mustard oil. As per allegation such chemical was stored with a view to create adulterated mustard oil. In view of the allegations in the FIR being quite distinct and unrelated to the analyst report contained in Annexure-2, this Court finds no merit in the first submission. 5. It has been next contended that at the relevant time the provisions in the Unification Order did not prescribe any ceiling on the quantity of mustard oil to be stored by a stockist. 5. It has been next contended that at the relevant time the provisions in the Unification Order did not prescribe any ceiling on the quantity of mustard oil to be stored by a stockist. On a closure analysis of the FIR, it is found that this submission is also not relevant because the allegations are of different nature. 6. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in this quashing application. It is, therefore, dismissed. The stay order is vacated and the court below is directed to expedite the proceeding which has remained pending for a long period.