ORDER : In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings instituted in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 which has been instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The allegation which has been made in the First Information Report instituted by the Block Supply Officer, Chanho is to the effect that in terms of the direction of the Sub Divisional Officer the premises of Maruti Eastern Food Industries, Ratu was searched on 21.10.2015. Recovery of huge quantity of pulses were made and it was alleged that since excess quantity of pulses over and above the storage limit of 500 quintal were kept in the premises, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is of keeping pulses not within the storage limit fixed by the Government but the storage limit said to have been fixed is contrary to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. It has been submitted that nowhere in the notification dated 09.03.2015 it has been disclosed as to whether the prior concurrence of the State Government had been taken before issuance of the said notification and whether the same was published in the Gazette as such no cognizance can be taken of the notification dated 09.03.2015 and, therefore, in absence of compliance of the statutory provisions in terms of Clause 18 of the Unification Order it would be presumed that there was no storage limit of pulses as on the date of the seizure. Learned counsel has also submitted that no licence fee has been prescribed for dealing in pulses and any confiscation or prosecution becomes invalid in absence of fixation of any licence fee for dealing in pulses. Submission has also been advanced that the First Information Report which has been instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act does not disclose as to which order as prescribed under Section 3 of the Act has been violated. Submission has also been advanced that the First Information Report which has been instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act does not disclose as to which order as prescribed under Section 3 of the Act has been violated. It has further been submitted that since there are serious flaws in the prosecution case which is the fatal to the prosecution the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Countering the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the Department of Food Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand had issued a notification dated 09.03.2015 fixing the storage limit of pulses of 500 quintal and the period of operation of the notification was extended from time to time. It has been submitted that on the date when the raid was conducted the notification of the State Government was in operation and, therefore, having found the pulses over and above the storage limit fixed by the notification dated 09.03.2015 the articles were rightly seized and a criminal prosecution was instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in such circumstances, therefore, there is no cause for interference in the criminal proceedings. 6. Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties with respect to the Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 it would be necessary to refer to the same which reproduced hereinunder :- “18. Restriction on possession of trade articles.-No person shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, store or have in his possession at any time any trade article mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II in quantity exceeding the limits fixed :- (i) under an order issued by the Central Government, or (ii) by the Sate Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notification in official Gazette from time to time.” 7. Clause 18 specifies fixation of storage limit by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notification in the official Gazette. The primary requirement of complying Clause 18 of the Unification Order is of prior concurrence of the Central Government and publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Clause 18 specifies fixation of storage limit by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notification in the official Gazette. The primary requirement of complying Clause 18 of the Unification Order is of prior concurrence of the Central Government and publication of the notification in the official Gazette. None of the requirement seems to have been fulfilled as the State Government has straightway in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act had issued the notification fixing 500 quintals as the storage limit. 8. Neither the notification nor the counter affidavit filed by the State discloses about the compliance of the statutory requirement as envisaged under Clause 18 of the Unification Order. Such noncompliance would automatically lead to the conclusion that on the date when the inspection was made and seizure of the pulses were effected there was no storage limit in vogue and such situation would undoubtedly lead to a conclusion that the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner is bad in law. 9. In the case of Gauri Shankar Saboo vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. Reported in [2010 (1) East Cr C 187 (Jhr)], this Court while considering the provisions of Clause 18 as held under :- “13. Admittedly, the aforesaid notification has neither been published in the official Gazette nor anything is on record to show that said notification has been issued with prior concurrence of the Central Government. Moreover, the said notification as required under the aforesaid clause has never been issued by the State Government, rather it has been issued by the Secretary of the department. 14. The intendment of the notification being published in the Official Gazette is that in case of fixation of stock limit the public must come to know the same. Therefore, it would not be operative unless published in the Official Gazette and mere printing of such notice in the newspaper, as has been done by the authority cannot be equated with the publication in the Official Gazette. 15. Thus, issuance of the notification prescribing stock limit of the food grains including pulses never seems to have been one in accordance with the provisions of the Unification Order and on that account, any prosecution on the ground of having excess food grains/pulses than the stock limit fixed would certainly be quit illegal.” 10. 15. Thus, issuance of the notification prescribing stock limit of the food grains including pulses never seems to have been one in accordance with the provisions of the Unification Order and on that account, any prosecution on the ground of having excess food grains/pulses than the stock limit fixed would certainly be quit illegal.” 10. In the case of Satya Narain Prasad vs. The State of Bihar reported in [ 1998 PLJR 502 ], it was held that the prosecution gets vitiated if the confiscation or prosecution becomes invalid on account of the fact that no licence fee has been prescribed for licenses for dealing in pulses. 11. The State of Jharkhand either in the counter affidavit or in course of argument of the learned A.P.P. was not able to controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution becomes invalid also in view of the fact that no licence fee has been prescribed in dealing in pulses. 12. Thus what would falls from the above is that the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner is vitiated in view of the non-compliance of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and, accordingly, continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, as a cumulative result of the discussion made hereinabove the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.