JUDGMENT Bhargava, J. - This is a revision by one Prakash Chand who has been convicted for an offence u/s 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. He was charged with the contravention of Clause (3) of the Cloth Movement Control Order on the ground that he was found attempting to export cloth from the United Provinces to Delhi at Ghaziabad railway station. 2. The first point taken in this revision is that the Cloth Movement Control Order, which, according to the prosecution, has been contravened by the applicant hag not been described with sufficient particulars in the case. It, however, appears that the Cloth Movement Control Order referred to was the Cotton Textile Movement Control Order, 1946, and this was referred to Textile Movement Control Order, 1946, and this was referred to as such in the charge-sheet on the basis of which the proceedings were instituted in Court. In the charge framed the year of the order was not mentioned but the accused pleaded guilty and it is obvious that he properly understood the reference. 3. The second point taken was that the charge framed against the applicant did not mention that he was transporting the cloth by rail, which was an essential ingredient for contravention of Clause (3) of the Cotton Textile Movement Order, 1946. My attention has been drawn by the learned Additional Government Advocate to Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which cares such a defect in the charge. There is no plea that the failure to mention that the cloth was moved by rail has, in any way, prejudiced the applicant. 4. Finally the point taken was that the order of forfeiture was not justified because the accused had been convicted only for attempting to contravene an order and not for an actual contravention of an order passed under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Section 8 of this Act, however, lays down that a person attempting to contravene is deemed to have contravened the order. For the purposes of Section 7, therefore, the applicant must be deemed to have contravened the order in respect of the cloth which he was transporting by rail and the order of forfeiture of the cloth is, therefore, in accordance with law. 5. A plea has been put in for reduction of sentence on the ground that a fine of Rs. 5. A plea has been put in for reduction of sentence on the ground that a fine of Rs. 500/- in addition to the forfeiture of the cloth amounts to a very heavy punishment. The cloth ordered to be forfeited is worth Rs. 800/- and the fine does appear to be excessive. 6. I reduce the fine to Rs. 200/-. The sentence of forfeiture is maintained. 7. With this modification the revision is dismissed.