JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C), petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by Special Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Excise), Jammu by virtue of which petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, on the ground that the said order is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In the petition, it has been stated that petitioner was holding a valid license issued by the Agricultural Department for sale of fertilizer. It is stated that 38 bags of DAP fertilizer were seized by the Police which were procured by petitioner from the J&K State Agro Industries Development Corporation against payment vide receipt dated 04.10.2010. The further case of the petitioner is that no seizure was made by the Police in respect of material which was allegedly said to be sold by the petitioner on higher rate. The documents seized by the Police from the petitioner do not indicate that any material/fertilizers were sold by the petitioner on higher rate than the rate fixed by the Government to the complainant. It is further stated that the allegations leveled in the FIR and Challan do not disclose any cognizable offence. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.11.2010 complainant-Subash Chander lodged a written complaint in the Police Station, Gharota, stating therein that petitioner, who is running a store at Village Jandiyal Thathi for sale of fertilizers is charging a sum of Rs.550/- per bag, whereas the maximum retail price fixed by the Government is Rs.523/-; that petitioner is selling the fertilizer bag at a higher rate. On the basis of this, an FIR No. 97/2010 under Sections 420 RPC and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was registered with the Police Station, Gharota. After completing the investigation, the challan was produced before the court below. The court below after hearing the arguments, framed the charge under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities, Act against the petitioner/accused on 21.05.2011. 5. I have carefully gone through the Challan and other material collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation. 6. After completing the investigation, the challan was produced before the court below. The court below after hearing the arguments, framed the charge under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities, Act against the petitioner/accused on 21.05.2011. 5. I have carefully gone through the Challan and other material collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation. 6. In brief the prosecution case is that petitioner/accused has charged the cost of fertilizer at the rate Rs.550/- per bag instead of Rs.523/-; but in record there is no such receipt or any other documentary evidence from where it can be inferred that accused/petitioner has charged Rs.550/- as cost of fertilizer per bag instead of Rs.523/-. During the investigation, the police has seized unsold 38 bags of DAP Fertilizer, which were lying in the shop of the petitioner, and not sold bags allegedly sold @ Rs.550/- per bag. 7. Petitioner has been booked u/s 3/7 of E.C Act. For deciding the case in hand, Sections 3 & 7 are reproduced hereunder:- “Section 3. Powers to Control Production, Supply, Distribution, Etc. of Essential Commodities. (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, [12 or for securing any essential commodity for the defense of India or the efficient conduct of military operations 12], it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made there under may provide,- (a) for regulating by licenses, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity; (b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land, whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-crops generally or of specified food-crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops generally, or of specified foods-crops; (c) for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold; (d) for regulating by licenses, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity; (e) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale; (f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged in the production, or in the business of buying or selling, of any essential commodity, - (a) to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or produced or received by him, or (b) in the case of any such commodity which is likely to be produced or received by him, to sell the whole or a specified part of such commodity when produced or received by him, to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the other. ------------------------------------------------- Section 7. Penalties. --(1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3,— (a) he shall be punishable,— (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, 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.” ----------- 8. On conjoint reading of both these sections, it is evident there should be a notification issued under section 3 of Act for attracting the penal consequence of section 7 of Act; in other words it can be said that notification under section 3 of Act is sine-quo-non for launching the prosecution against accused u/s 7 of Act. In present case, there is no valid Notification issued by the Government under Sections 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, from where it can be inferred as to what was the exact rate of bag (fertilizer) fixed by the Government at the time of commission of offences. There is a public notice issued by the Controller of Fertilizers of the J&K (Director of Agriculture, Jammu) in file but it also does not bear the date of the said notification. For launching prosecution u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, I/O was required to place on record a valid notification as held in 2004 (4) Crimes 83 (SC), in case titled Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which reads as under: “Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 7(1)(a)(ii)-Conviction of appellant by courts below-Contravention alleged and proved was Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1991- It was necessary for prosecution to place on record the order which was foundation for taking action-Scheme like the one at hand was framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India-Contention now raised that no order alleged to have been violated was proved was not raised before trial court or High Court-Matter remitted to High court and parties permitted to place material in support of their case. Held; For bringing an application under Section 7 of the Act , the essential requirement is an order, the violation of which is alleged. Unfortunately, neither before the Trial Court nor the High Court, any effort was made to place on record the order the violation of which was alleged. In Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1981) (4) SCC 535), it was observed that a Scheme like the one at hand is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India,1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’). That being so, it was necessary for the prosecution to place on record the “Order” which, according to it, was the foundation for taking action against the accused appellant. (1981) (4) SCC 535), it was observed that a Scheme like the one at hand is framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India,1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’). That being so, it was necessary for the prosecution to place on record the “Order” which, according to it, was the foundation for taking action against the accused appellant. Section 7 refers to contravention of any order made under Setion3. It is essential for bringing in application of Section 7 to show that some order has been made under Section 3 and the order has been contravened. Section 3 deals with powers to control production, supply, distribution etc, of essential commodities. Exercise of such powers, can be done by “order”. According to Section 2 (c) “notified order” means an order notified in the official Gazette, and Section 2(cc) provides that” order includes a directio0n issued there under:” 9. Further, the bags which were sold to the complainant for Rs.550/- instead Rs.523/- have not been seized, but the unsold bags which were lying in shop of petitioner have been seized. The investigation has been conducted in most perfunctory manner. Now law is clear that where it is fairly certain that, due to technical defects in investigation, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction of accused, then valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If it is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate the proceedings at initial stage. 10. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed; impugned order framing charge u/s 3/7 E. C. Act against the petitioner, is set aside; challan pending before court below is also dismissed.