JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. - In this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioner prays for quashing the F. I. R. and also the entire proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2013 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No. 8 of 2013 pending in the Court of the learned C.J.M., Bolangir. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Transport and Handling contractor for Public Distribution System materials including rice on the date of occurrence. The aforesaid vigilance case was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by D.S.P., Vigilance, Subarnapur on 17.07.2013 for alleged commission of offence by the petitioner and another under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short 'the E.C.' Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that with reference to S.D. Entry No. 204 dated 16.07.2013 of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S., the informant with the Inspector of supplies, Dunguripali and the Marketing Inspector, Ullunda proceeded to the border gate of Sonepur and Boudh district to verify the truth of the information recorded in S.D. Entry and waited for the arrival of the alleged vehicle. At about 8.00 p.m. they found the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-12 A 0399 (TATA 709) was proceeding towards Manmunda in the district of Boudh. From a distance of about 100 yards the informants had put the check gate bar in order to stop the vehicle and on seeing the check gate bar the driver stopped the vehicle about 30 meters from check gate and tried to reverse the vehicle in order to escape, but he was stopped by the informant and witnesses. Being asked the driver gave his name and address and further disclosed that he has loaded PDS rice from the Central Warehouse Corporation (CWC) go-down at Kalapathar village on Sonepur-Binka Road. The driver produced the gate cum transit pass and PDS acceptance note, which revealed that he loaded 194 bags (Q. 95.03) and 6 bags (Q. 2.74) of BPL rice meant for EO, Jaoli and EO, Ullunda respectively. The driver had left the CWC go-down at 4.50 p.m. on that day and was supposed to cover a distance of 18 kms north of the CWC go-down in order to reach Jaoli, as per route indicated in the transit pass, but he was found proceeding towards Boudh district, which is just opposite of the route to his destination. The driver had left the CWC go-down at 4.50 p.m. on that day and was supposed to cover a distance of 18 kms north of the CWC go-down in order to reach Jaoli, as per route indicated in the transit pass, but he was found proceeding towards Boudh district, which is just opposite of the route to his destination. This indicated that the rice meant for the BPL beneficiaries of Jaoli and Ullunda G.P were being illegally carried/diverted to some other destination with evil intention for its black marketing. The informant brought the driver of the vehicle to the Vigilance Unit office for further verification. On sustained interrogation the driver admitted that as per the direction of the present petition, the Transporting and Handling contractor, he was proceeding to Manmunda (Boudh district) instead of Jaoli and Ullunda. On the basis of the F.I.R. investigation was taken up against petition and the driver. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there being no allegation in the F.I.R. as to which Control Order has been violated the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of this Court reported in (1993) 6 OCR 726 : Pradyumna Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute violation of Section 11 (2)(b) of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and such violation is punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and that mere non-mention of the name of the particular Control Order does not vitiate the proceeding and the investigation. 4. Section 7 of the E.C. Act is a penal Section which prescribes punishment for violation of any provision of any control order issued under Section 3 of the said Act. 5. The Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (in short 'the 2008 Order') has been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the said 2008 Order prohibits wholesaler from doing certain things. 5. The Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (in short 'the 2008 Order') has been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the said 2008 Order prohibits wholesaler from doing certain things. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Control Order 2008 provides as under: "(2) The Wholesaler (* * *) shall not: (a) Close the business premises during the business hours on working days without obtaining prior written permission of the licensing authority or an officer authorized by the licensing authority or by Government; (b) deliver Public Distribution System commodities to any person other than that a licensee to any person other than that a licensee for whom the commodities are meant to be supplied; (c) stock/store the public Distribution System commodities at any place other than the place allowed in the license; (d) retain the tally register of other licensees with him; and (e) keep the records relating to the business at any place other than the licensed business premises." It has seen that the aforesaid provision applies to a wholesaler. The term 'wholesaler' has been defined in Rule 2(s) of the 2008 Order. According to the definition, a 'wholesaler' means a 'dealer' who stores and sells PDS commodities to another wholesaler or retailer, and includes a sub-wholesaler or a storage agent. 6. The word 'dealer' has been defined in Clause (h) of Rule 2 in the following manner: "(h) "Dealer" means any persons, firm, association of persons, company, Panchayati Raj Institution, Urban Local Body, Co-operative Society, Women Self Help Group, Forest Protection Committee, Self Help Group or any other institution carrying on business on wholesale or retail basis in the purchase, storage, sale and/or distribution of essential commodities meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System land includes Wholesaler or Handling and Transport Contractor Level-I and Level-II or Transport Contractor for Sugar Zonal Depot or State Level Transport Contractor or Retailer]" 7. The term 'Wholesaler' includes 'Dealer' and the word 'Dealer' includes a Handling and Transport Contractor. Therefore, there is no doubt that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of 2008 Order would also apply to a Handling and Transport Contractor. The term 'Wholesaler' includes 'Dealer' and the word 'Dealer' includes a Handling and Transport Contractor. Therefore, there is no doubt that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of 2008 Order would also apply to a Handling and Transport Contractor. Clause (b) which prevents a wholesaler from delivering Public Distribution System Commodities to any person other than that of a licensee for whom the commodities are meant to be supplied shall also apply to a Handling and Transport Contractor and any violation of that provision by such a contractor would definitely attract the penal provision Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 8. In fact the F.I.R. in the instant case does not refer to the provision of 2008 Control Order. But that by itself would not render the investigation and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner vitiated. 9. Any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force is an offence. If the acts alleged amounts to an offence, the mere non-mention of the statutory or legal provision in the F.I.R. as to how the facts alleged constitute the offence would not render the investigation vitiated. It is however, at the stage of taking cognizance and/or framing of charge, the Court must be conscious of the fact as to how the facts alleged in the F.I.R. constitute the offence which is punishable under the penal provision. Therefore, the mere non-mention in the F.I.R. of the particular Control Order, the provision of which is said to be violated by the petitioner would not render the proceeding vitiated. 10. The decision of this Court in the case of Pradyumna Kumar Behera (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to quashing a cognizance order. In that decision, apart from the issue that provision of Control Order was not indicated, the Court further held that the accused therein was neither a stockiest nor licensee and, therefore, he was not at all liable to be prosecuted. 11. The said decision will have no application to the present case at the moment when prayer is to quash the F.I.R. and the entire proceeding. 12. The CRLMC is therefore dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Final Result : Dismissed