JUDGMENT By Court.-Both these writ applications arise out of the same F.I.R. and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In Cr.W.J.C No. 32 of 2000(R) the petitioner has challenged the seizure of 79 bags of wheat from the god own of this petitioner and 17 bags of wheat from truck bearing registration No. OR-02-3188, in connection with Golmuri P.S Case no. 207 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 2171 of 1999, through the seizure list contained in Annexure-2. Whereas in Cr.W.J.C. No. 35 of 2000(R), the said petitioner has challenged the criminal prosecution, initiated against him under Section 7 of the E.C. Act on the basis of the said seizure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a very short question of law is involved in these writ applications i.e. on the relevant date of seizure i.e., on 19.12.1999, there was no control order in force with respect to wheat. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-8 which has been brought on record through supplemel1tary affidavit filed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 35 of 200C (R); which is an order dated 23.2.2006 passed in confiscation case no. 12 of 2000-01 by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, in the confiscation proceeding with respect to the wheat in question. In the said order, the confiscation proceeding was dropped in view of the fact that there was no control order with respect to wheat on the date of seizure. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the entire seizure, as well as, the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, are absolutely illegal and void ab initio and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer, but he could not point out anything to show that on the relevant date of the seizure, there was no any control order in force with respect to wheat. 5. It is well settled principle of law that when the control order itself was not in force with respect to wheat on the date of seizure, no seizure as well as the criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act could be maintained against the petitioner. 5. It is well settled principle of law that when the control order itself was not in force with respect to wheat on the date of seizure, no seizure as well as the criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act could be maintained against the petitioner. Accordingly, the seizure of the wheat as also the criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act are absolutely illegal and void ab initio and are fit to be quashed. 6. As such, both these writ applications succeed. The criminal prosecution of the petitioner, which was initiated on the basis of seizure of the wheat in Golmuri P.S. Case No. 207 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 2171 of 1999 pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)-cum-1st Addl. Sessions Judge at Jamshedpur, is hereby, quashed. Consequently, the seizure of the wheat in the said case, as contained in Annexure-2 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 32 of 2000(R), is also hereby, quashed. Accordingly, both these writ applications are, hereby, allowed.