JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 414, 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 77 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2701 of 2012, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi. 3. The FIR was lodged stating therein that the informant received one secret information that on 15.05.2012 near Malmadu Chowk at about 07.30 A.M. two trucks carrying illegal rice would be brought for black marketing. After initial verification and after obtaining due permission from the senior officials, the informant with his team reached at the Malmadu Chowk and started checking. It has been alleged that during checking two trucks were seen coming from Karamkuli at 10.30 AM which were made to stop with the help of police force. The trucks were bearing respective numbers as JH 01K 0260 & JH 01 P 5458 (407). On being enquired about the names of truck drivers, it was told as Jolen Kanduluna (of truck no. JH 01K 0260) and Haldhar Singh (of truck no. JH 01 P 5458). They told the name of truck owner of truck no. JH 01K 0260 as Dilip Kumar Sahu and Naresh Agarwal (petitioner no.2) of truck no. JH 01 P 5458. It was further told that the owner of the loaded rice is Santosh Sahu who was sitting on truck no. JH 01K 0260 from whom enquiry was made about the rice loaded on truck. On being asked about the papers with regard to the loaded rice, it was shown to the police as issued in the name of Saroj Kumar Gupta and Pradip Sahu. It has been further alleged that when the police strictly asked about the papers and the loaded rice it was told that the papers are forged and the rice loaded on the trucks were being carried after purchasing it from one Naim Ansari for selling it to one Sanjay Sao (petitioner no.1). It has been further alleged that in the presence of two independent witness the truck was searched and found the truck no. It has been further alleged that in the presence of two independent witness the truck was searched and found the truck no. JH 01K 0260 loaded with 280 bags of rice each of 50 kg and the truck no. JH 01 P 5458 was found loaded with 100 bags of rice each weighing 50 kg. It has been further alleged that on being not showing any valid papers with regard to the loaded rice, the same were duly seized with the forged documents. Jolen Kandulana, Haldhar Singh and Santosh Sahu were also arrested by the police. 4. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance in a routine manner and there is non-application of judicial mind. He submits that the allegation made in the FIR does not constitute the contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that ingredients of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act cannot made out, in view of fact that the seized article namely rice is not a controlled item under any order, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act at the time of alleged commission of offence. 5. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Arun Nag @ Arun Kumar Nag & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2012 (3) JCR 200 (Jhr). Para-8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- 8. So far offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is concerned, it does get attracted when provision of any order issued under Section 3 is violated. In the instant case, there has been no mentioning of contravention of the provision of any order. Moreover, it has never been denied that on the day of occurrence, no storage limit, within respect to rice and wheat was in force. Under this situation, the prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act cannot be sustained. 6. He further submits that nothing has been brought to show that any representation was made which the maker knew to be false, yet he made anyone believe that it was correct. The expression ‘dishonestly’ as used in definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, is not attracted. There is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioners have wrongfully gained or caused wrongful loss to anyone. The expression ‘dishonestly’ as used in definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, is not attracted. There is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioners have wrongfully gained or caused wrongful loss to anyone. On these grounds he submits that IPC Sections are unnecessarily involved in this case and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. He submits that since there is special statute, there is no question of taking the cognizance under the Sections of IPC. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that without any authority, the rice was being carried out that’s why the FIR has been lodged and there is no illegality in the prosecution as well as the order taking cognizance. 8. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to interpret Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, which is reproduced herein below:- “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.” 9. 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. 10. In the case of Gauri Shankar Saboo v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2010 (1) East Cr C 187 (Jhr), this Court while considering the provisions of Clause 18 held as 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. 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.” 11. In light of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners are vitiated in view of non-compliance of the statutory provisions in terms of Clause 18 of the Unification Order and to allow to continue the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 414, 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 77 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2701 of 2012, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, are hereby, quashed. 12. As such, this petition is allowed and disposed of.