ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 21 of 2008, corresponding to G. R. No. 256 of 2008/ TR No. 1900 of 2010, whereby cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act) has been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the entire consequential criminal prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 as an accused. Though, the F.I.R. has been lodged only against co-accused Biru Sao, but on close of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner also. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 that any order issued in terms of Section 3 of the E. C. Act, has been violated. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable under the mandate of Section 7 of the E.C. Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Mahanthi Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007(2) PLJR 289 , Md. Shamim Khan @ Shamim Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 103 and Ramjee Passwan vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2010(2) PLJR 158 , besides some other judgments on the same points. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned order by referring to the provisions of the E.C. Act and the allegation disclosed in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it may be relevant to notice the substance of allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it may be relevant to notice the substance of allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1. It is true that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 and only co-accused Biru Sao is specifically named as accused, but according to the prosecution case on the basis of confidential information received about black-marketing of the food-grains of the Government, supplied by the Food Corporation of India, shop of accused Biru Sao was raided on 28.02.2008 at about 9.30 A.M. On search made in the shop, 115 bags of wheat and 19 bags of rice, purportedly belonging to Food Corporation of India, were seized from there. On interrogation made to co-accused Biru Sao, who was said to be present at the time of search, he has disclosed the name of the petitioner as a person, who had sold the aforesaid seized item of wheat and rice to him. However, no paper was produced by the accused. Accordingly, seizure memo was prepared with respect to the seized food-grains and the prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was initiated. Admittedly, on close of investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and, by the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada. 6. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System and has violated any order issued in terms of Section 3 of the E. C. Act, which is punishable under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 7. As a matter of fact, according to the prosecution, the case of the petitioner falls under Section 7(2) of the E. C. Act, as there has been violation of direction issued under Clause-(b) of Sub-section (4) of Section-3 of the E.C. Act. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the case, it will be relevant to reproduce Section 3 Sub-section (4) as also Section 7, Sub-Section (2) of the E. C. Act, which reads as follows:- “3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the case, it will be relevant to reproduce Section 3 Sub-section (4) as also Section 7, Sub-Section (2) of the E. C. Act, which reads as follows:- “3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.- (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) If the central Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining or increasing the production and supply of an essential commodity, it may, by order, authorize any person (hereinafter referred to as an authorized controller) to exercise, with respect to the whole or any part of any such undertaking engaged in the production and supply of the commodity as may be specified in the order such functions of control as may be provided therein and so long as such order is in force with respect to any undertaking or part thereof,- (a) the authorized controller shall exercise his functions in accordance with any instructions given to him by the Central Government, so, however, that he shall not have any power to give any direction inconsistent with the provisions of any enactment or any instrument determining the functions of the persons in-charge of the management of the undertaking, except in so far as may be specifically provided by the order; and (b) the undertaking or part shall be carried on in accordance with any directions given by the authorized controller under the provisions of the order, and any person having any functions of management in relation to the undertaking or part shall comply with any such directions. …………..” x x x x x x x x x x x x “7.- Penalties.- (1) x x x x x x (2) If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: [Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.]” 8. On the basis of the materials available on record it would be apparent that the seized food grains are essential items and prima facie, it appears to be belonging to the Government of India; the Food Corporation of India appears to have been authorized to supply the same either to the dealers or as per direction issued by the Government. Section 3(4) (b) of the E.C. Act mandates that the directions issued by the authorized controller, (in the present case, it can be read as Food Corporation of India) shall be strictly complied with for the purpose of supply of the food grains. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor the case of the accused Biru Sao that seized food grains were legally supplied to them by the Food Corporation of India on the basis of any valid order. 9. On a plain perusal of Section 7 (2) of the E.C. Act, it is apparent that this provision does not apply to any dealer under the Public Distribution System. Section 7(2) of the E.C. Act starts with the word if any person. Therefore, even if some one is not dealer under the Public Distribution System, he or she can be very well prosecuted in terms of Section 7(2) of the E. C. Act for violation of the provisions contained in Section 3 (4) of the E. C. Act. The prosecution of the petitioner is well within the ambit of Section 7(2) read with Section 3(4) (b) of the E.C. Act. 10. None of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the issues involved in the present case. Rather one of the judgments in the case of Ramjee Paswan vs. State of Bihar (supra) has already been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a member) in the case of Arjun Paswan vs. State of Bihar [ 2011 (3) PLJR 964 ]. Other judgments are entirely on different facts. Therefore, the petitioner does not get any benefit from those judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. On examination of the materials on record and on the scrutiny of the provisions of law, prima facie, a case under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner does not get any benefit from those judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. On examination of the materials on record and on the scrutiny of the provisions of law, prima facie, a case under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is made out against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 12.01.2010 is perfectly valid and legal in the facts and circumstances set out above. No case for interference is made out. 12. The application stands dismissed. 13. However, it is clarified that the observations made above are only for the purposes of disposal of the present proceeding and any observations made hereinabove or findings recorded therein shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner during the course of trial.