Amareshwar Sahay, J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004, whereby the S.D.J.M., Garhwa, took cognizance of the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. The facts in short are that the petitioner was holding a fair price shop being license No. 2 of 1984 and the shop was raided in which wheat and rice was found excess in his stock. According to stock register. 34 Quintals 41 Kgs. 680 grams wheat should have been there but on physical verification, the quantity of wheat was found to be 76 quintals and 50 kgs. Similarly, as per the stock register, 27 quintals 27 kgs of rice should have been there but on physical verification, the quantity of rice was found to be 49 quintals. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and, thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge -sheet was submitted and on the basis of charge -sheet, cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Jal Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004 is bad in law in view of the fact that neither the FIR nor in the charge -sheet nor in the order taking cognizance it is disclosed as to which particular Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated/contravened and therefore, the whole criminal prosecution against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness .;