Judgment Reuben, J. 1. The petitioners have been convicted by the 1st Glass Magistrate of Kishanganj under Section 7, read with Section. 8, Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, 1946, (Central Act XXIV [24] of 1946), and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for lour months. Also, the essential commodities, namely, paddy and rice, in respect of which the offence, of which they have been convicted is said to have been committed, have been forfeited under the provisions of the Act The conviction, the sentence and the order of the forfeiture have been upheld in appeal by the Additional sessions Judge of Purnea. 2. The offence is found to have been committed by the petitioners by attempting on the night of 17-11-1948 at Baisabari Ghat police station Thakurganj, to carry nee and paddy beyond the permitted limit to Nepal, in contravention of a notification (Notifn. NO. 538 P. C., dated 9-1-1948) issued by the Bihar Government. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Government of Bihar in question does not operate to prevent the transport of essential commodities from the Provincial a place outside India and, therefore, the direction of which the petitioners have been found guilty was not in contravention of the Government order. Paddy and rice are essential commodities within the provisions of Act XXIV [24]. Under Sec.3 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered by notified order to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities, and trade and commerce therein. Under Sec. 4 the Central Government is empowered to delegate its powers under Sec.3, among others, to a Provincial Government; this delegation to be subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction under Sec. 4. The delegation of powers is the present case was made under the Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Ordinance, 1946, and under Section17 of Act XXXV [24] is to be treated as delegation made under the Act. The delegation of powers is the present case was made under the Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Ordinance, 1946, and under Section17 of Act XXXV [24] is to be treated as delegation made under the Act. The delegation was made subject to an important restriction, namely, "No order made in the exercise of the aforesaid powers shall have effect so as to prohibit or restrict the export, from any place in the province to any place outside India, of any Articles or things." The order of the Provincial Government which is found to have been contravened is as follows; "No person shall export or carry or cause to be exported or carried by rail, river or road any quantity of any of the commodities specified in the schedule annexed hereto or any product thereof from any district in the Province of Bihar to any place outside the Province of Bihar except with the written permission of the Chief Controller of prices and supplies, Bihar: Provided that a bona fide traveller may, without such permission, carry as part of his personal luggage any quantity not exceeding ten seers of each of the said commodities: Provided further that nothing in this order shall apply to the export or carriage of commodities booked or despatched under Military Credit Notes." It is admitted that the petitioners had no written permission from anybody and that they do not come within either of these provisos. But it is urged that the effect of the restriction placed on the powers of the Provincial Government is to prevent the order operating as against export from India into a foreign country. 4 It Las been strenuously argued in support of the conviction that the essence of the offence consists in the attempt which the petitioners were making to take the essential commodities outside the province. It does not matter, it is said, whether the articles were going to a place inside India or outside it; what is forbidden by the Provincial Government order is the removal of the prohibited articles from any place in the Province to any place outside. This order, however, must be read subject to the condition imposed by the Central Government when de-legating power to the Provincial Government. This order, however, must be read subject to the condition imposed by the Central Government when de-legating power to the Provincial Government. That limitation says that the Government order shall not have effect to prohibit or restrict ex-port from a place in the Province to a place outside India, Hare we are concerned with articles which were in the act of being transported from Purnea into the adjoining country of Nepal. If it be held that the order of the Provincial Government applies to prevent the passage of these articles, it clearly contravenes the restriction aforesaid. 5. It has been urged that the object of the restriction was to prevent a, conflict between such order as might be passed by the Provincial Government and a permit for export that might have been issued by the Central Government allowing the transport from the Province to a foreign country. In other words, the argument is that the powers of the Provincial Government are limited to the restriction of export which is not sanctioned by a lawful permit. This interpretation involves the reading of the word "lawful" before the word "export" in the limitation as contained in the Central Government notification. I see nO justification for reading this word into the notification. 6. Thirdly, it was urged that the word "export" in the Central Government notification relates to export in the commercial sense, that is export for the purposes of trade; whereas the defence of the petitioners was that they were taking the paddy and rice for their own consumption. The word "export" has a well accepted dictionary meaning. It is derived from two Latin words; ex, meaning from, and portare, meaning to carry. In the contest in which it occurs in the Central Government notification there is no reason for understanding it to be used in a special sense. The dictionary sense is the sense in which we find the word used in the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act of 1914. We find this also in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, (Central Act II [2] of 1930). 7. The present case is to my mind, exactly covered by a decision of this Court reported in Kumanchand V/s. Emperor, 24 pat. 685: (A. I. R. (33) 1946 Pat. 158: 47 Cr. L. J. 945). 8. We find this also in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, (Central Act II [2] of 1930). 7. The present case is to my mind, exactly covered by a decision of this Court reported in Kumanchand V/s. Emperor, 24 pat. 685: (A. I. R. (33) 1946 Pat. 158: 47 Cr. L. J. 945). 8. On the above grounds I would allow this petition, set aside the conviction and sentences of the accused petitioners and direct that they be acquitted. They will now be discharged from their bail. The articles confiscated shall be returned to them. This will apply to the price, if the articles have been sold. Jha, J. 9 I agree.