ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2014 including the order dated 16.04.2015 as well as the order dated 21.01.2016, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M), Palamau at Daltonganj, by which cognizance has been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well as substance of accusation for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act for short) has been explained to the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that institution of the FIR itself suffers from inherent defects as none of the orders have been mentioned for violation of the provision under section 7 of the E.C. Act. It has further been submitted that even in the charge-sheet as well as in subsequent order taking cognizance, nothing finds mention therein as to what order promulgated under section 3 of the E.C. Act has been followed. It has also been submitted that on mere apprehension that an offence is going to be committed, the petitioner has been made an accused and in absence of the offence have been committed, no FIR could have been instituted against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that wordings of section 7of E.C. Act clearly speak about violation of section 3 of the E.C. Act and in view of the said provision of law no criminal prosecution can lie and entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was involved in black marketing of rice under Public Distribution System. It has been submitted that petitioner is the owner of vehicle, on which rice was being transported. 5. It appears from the FIR that 100 bags of rice meant for distribution to the shop of Public Distribution System were apprehended by the villagers and it was disclosed that such rice was being sent from the PDS shop of Jogendra Sao to the PDS shop of Madan Sao. The petitioner seems to be the owner of the vehicle. The FIR does not disclose as to what order promulgated under section 3 of the E.C. Act has been violated. The petitioner seems to be the owner of the vehicle. The FIR does not disclose as to what order promulgated under section 3 of the E.C. Act has been violated. Even the charge-sheet merely mentions about an offence committed under section 7 of the E.C. Act In absence of mention about any order which is said to have been violated, no offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act can be said to have been committed. Moreover, the allegation which has been made in the FIR is on mere surmises as no such offence has been committed but there was only apprehension that such offence is going to be committed. 6. In the case of Satya Narayan Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in [2013(4) East Cr C 285( Jhr)], in similar circumstances, it was held as follows:- "10. Thus, the case of the prosecution appears to be that instead of truck loaded with Rice being taken to godown of SFC, Markachho, the same was being taken to the State of Bihar though according to the case of the prosecution, the truck Driver had never crossed the border and, as such, the act of the accused persons were at the stage of preparation and, therefore, it can be said that an attempt was being made to commit offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since it has never been the case of the prosecution that provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been contravened or violated, one cannot be held to be guilty for making attempt to commit offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Furthermore, there been absolutely no allegation either of committing offence of forgery, misappropriation or cheating. Nor there has been any allegation that Rice, which was being transported was stolen property". 7. The circumstances enumerated above coupled with the judicial pronouncements on the subject would clearly lead to a finding that no prosecution can lie against the petitioner on mere apprehension or in absence of violation of any order so as to prosecute the petitioner under section 7 of the E.C. Act. 8. Being in respectful agreement with the judgment under reference, continuation of criminal proceeding as against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of court. 8. Being in respectful agreement with the judgment under reference, continuation of criminal proceeding as against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of court. Accordingly by allowing this application, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2014 including the orders dated 16.04.2015 and 21.01.2016, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M), Palamau at Daltonganj, are hereby quashed and set aside.