Prosecution under Section 7, Essential Commodities Act is unsustainable without specifying the particular Control Order violated.

On September 2, 2014, the Circle Officer (Informant) conducted a raid at a godown in Bakhthan Astan, where individuals were found repackaging rice from F.C.I. printed bags into "double tiger" marked bags for local market supply.

Initially, the Petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but was later added as an accused based on a statement by a clerk (munsi) claiming the godown belonged to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner contended that the godown actually belonged to his brother, who had leased it to a third party (Suresh Prasad), and that the seized goods had already been released to said tenant.

The S.D.J.M., Begusarai, took cognizance against the Petitioner on December 6, 2016, under Section 465 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities (E.C.) Act.

Whether a prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act can be sustained if the F.I.R. fails to specify which Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Act was violated.

Whether mere suspicion of "black-marketing" of free-sale commodities like rice and wheat constitutes a criminal offence under the E.C. Act in the absence of restrictive orders.

The Court applied Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which penalizes the contravention of orders made under Section 3 of the Act.

It relied on the precedent *Hari Narain Mahto v. State of Bihar (2009)*, establishes that a specific Control Order violation must be cited for a valid prosecution.

It further applied *Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Bihar (2009)* and *Pritamlal Yadav v. State of Bihar (1982)*, which held that because there is no statutory price fixation or movement restriction on rice/wheat in Bihar (following G.S.R. 2 dated 12.10.2002), allegations of "black-marketing" these items are legally unsustainable.

The Court reasoned that Section 7 of the E.C. Act is derivative; it requires the breach of a specific Section 3 Control Order to be triggered.

In this case, the F.I.R. contained only "bald and vague" allegations of black-marketing without identifying any specific statutory order violated by the Petitioner.

The Court noted that the Petitioner was not a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) dealer, and since rice/wheat are free-sale commodities in Bihar with no licensing or movement restrictions under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licensing Unification) Order 1984, the act of keeping or selling them does not constitute an offence.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Petitioner was not the owner/occupier of the godown in question, and the release of goods to the actual tenant undermined the case against the Petitioner.

The Court concluded that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the cognizance order dated December 6, 2016, passed by the S.D.J.M., Begusarai, against the Petitioner.