Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Manbhum, dated 19th August 1950. The respondent had been tried and convicted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for having contravened Clause 3 (a), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1948. The trial was held before a Magistrate of Dhanbad who recorded an order of conviction on 15th July 1950. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the argument which had been advanced before him that the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 , were not in force in Chota Nagpur on the date of the offence said to have been committed by the respondent in this case, namely, on 16th January, 1950. It was because of this view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate, and acquitted the respondent. As against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, as just now stated, the State has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 were not in force in Chota Nagpur on 16th January 1950. 2. Mr. Baldeva Sahay, who has appeared for the respondent, has conceded that, by reason of certain later decisions of Division Benches of this Court, it must now be held that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 was in force in Chota Nagpur on 16th Janu-ary 1950, and he stated that he would no longer press that point. He has, however, argued the case on its merits, and has contended that the respondent ought, not to be found to have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 3. Now the facts are shortly these. The respondent is a retail shopkeeper dealing in sundry articles. One Mr. B. N. Singh Chaudhury a Supply Inspector of Jharia, who was examined as witness No. 2 for the prosecution, deposed that he had received information that the respondent had purchased 62 maunds of rice from Messrs Bholaram Shiblal of Chirkunda, and he conveyed this information to the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad who was examined as witness No. 1 for the prosecution. In consequence, both these Supply Inspectors visited the shop of the respondent on 4th February 1950, in Dhanbad Bazar. They met the respondent, and enquired from him about the said transaction. The evidence of both those witnesses is that the respondent admitted to have made a purchase of 62 maunds of rice from Messrs Bhola-ram Shiblal of Chirkunda, and, in support of that, he produced a cash memo (Ex. 1). This cash memo purports to have been granted to the respondent on 16th January 1950, and all that it says is that 31 bags of rice, weighing 62 maunds, had been sold by Messrs Bholaram Shiblal Agarwala to the respondent. Later on, that is, on 20th February 1950, the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer of Dhanbad stating, the circumstances referred to above and praying for the prosecution of the respondent under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 for having violated the provisions of Clause 3(a), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order of 1948. 4. Clause 3(a), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order of 1948 provides that no person shall engage in a wholesale transaction in foodgrains without a requisite licence. What is a "wholesale transaction" has been defined in Clause 2(o) of the said Order, and it means the purchase, sale or storage for sale in one day of 25 maunds or more of any foodgrain by any person. The prosecution case, therefore, was that the respondent had purchased more than 25 maunds of rice -- in fact, 62 maunds of rice -- on one day, that is, on 16th January 1950, from Messrs Bho-laram Shiblal Agarwala of Chirkunda, & hence he had violated the provisions of Clause 3(a), Food-grains Control Order. 5. The defence of the respondent has been that it is true that he had purchased altogether 62 maunds of rice from Messrs Bholaram Shiblal Agarwala for which he had been granted a cash memo on 16th January 1950, but that the purchase of that quantity of rice had been made in dribblets, that is, on several occasions, and not on one day, namely on 16th January 1950, and hence he cannot be found to have violated the provisions of Clause 3(a) of the Bihar Food-grains Control Order. 5a. It may be stated at once that the prosecution relied solely upon the cash memo (Ex. 5a. It may be stated at once that the prosecution relied solely upon the cash memo (Ex. 1) in support of its case that the purchase was made by the respondent on one day, and not on different dates, as was the case of the respondent. The respondent had examined witnesses in support of his case, and had given an explanation that the purchase had been made on several days in dribblets. There is no indication in the cash memo itself that the entire purchase was made on one day, namely, on 16th January 1950. The explanation offered by the respondent was a reasonable one, and the prosecution failed to produce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of its case that the purchase had been made on one day, that is, on 16th January 1950. Indeed, the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad (P. W. 1) admitted that he had examined no witness regarding the purchase of rice and the sale thereof, and further that he did not record any statement of Messrs Bholaram Shiblal from whom the rice is alleged to have been purchased by the respondent. The respondent had, at the very first instance, that is, on the visit of the two Supply Inspectors, given his statement in. writing which was exhibited at the trial as Ex. 2 and wherein he made the statement that he was a retail seller and had, in fact, purchased from Bholaram Shiblal 62 maunds of rice, and had sold the same to his customers. He had nowhere admitted that he had made the pur-chase on any one day. In his statement under Sec.342, Criminal P. C. also he explained that he had completed the purchase of 62 maunds of rice during a period of one and one and a half months by making petty purchases in quantities of 2 to 3 maunds. His explanation for there having been only one cash memo granted to him for the entire quantity of rice purchased by him was that Bholaram Shiblal had told him that, as he had to submit an account in the Income-tax Department, he (the respondent) should sign on the cash memo in respect of the 62 maunds of rice which the respondent had taken from Bholaram Shiblal, & it was for this reason that he signed the cash memo on 16th January 1950. In my judgment, the prosecution has failed to support its case by evidence that the purchase by the respondent of the entire quantity of rice was made in one day from Bholaram Shiblal Agarwala. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the acquittal of the respondent for the offence charged must be upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 7. I agree.