JUDGMENT M.C. Desai, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 22 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act (Act No. XXIV of 1953), for infringement of Rules 96 and 97 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) R. 1954. He is a weighment clerk employed by the Kundan Sugar Mills, Amroha, at the purchasing centre Chandak. One Ghasita Singh brought a cart loaded with sugarcane to the purchasing centre and the loaded cart was weighed by the applicant and its gross weight was noted down on a parcha and was announced to Ghasita Singh. Ghasita Singh then removed the cart from the weigh-bridge and proceeded towards the yard for unloading it. Before it could be unloaded and weighed, a Cane Inspector reached the purchasing centre and found that the parcha was still with the applicant and had not been delivered to Ghasita Singh. For this omission he was prosecuted and has been convicted. 2. The conviction is wholly wrong. R. 96 lays down that an occupier of a factory or a purchasing agent shall prepare or cause to be prepared at a purchasing centre a parcha in triplicate showing correctly ten particulars marked (a) to (j). The particulars marked (e) and (f) are to be written out in the parcha while the vehicle is still standing on the weigh-bridge, (they are the gross weight of the loaded cart and the weight (tare) of the cart, that is, of the empty cart), the particulars (a) to (d) are to be made as soon as the weighment takes place and the remaining particulars (g) to (j) are to be made as soon as the empty cart is weighed. R. 97 requires that the parcha referred to R. 96 must be handed over in duplicate to the person from whom the cane is purchased (or his authorised agent) before he leaves the weigh-bridge. Sec. 22 of the Act punishes any person who contravenes any provision of any rule made under the Act. 3. I find that the applicant cannot be convicted under Sec. 22 for two reasons. One is that there has been no contravention of any rule made under the Act. Sec. 22 of the Act punishes any person who contravenes any provision of any rule made under the Act. 3. I find that the applicant cannot be convicted under Sec. 22 for two reasons. One is that there has been no contravention of any rule made under the Act. The only rule alleged to have been contravened by him is R. 97 the contention of the prosecution is that he did not deliver the parcha to Ghasita Singh before he left the weigh-bridge with the loaded cart. It is only the parcha referred to in R. 96 which has to be handed over to the person from whom the cane is purchased and the parcha referred to in that Rule is the parcha containing ten particulars (a) to (j). In other words it is only when all the ten particulars are given in the parcha that it can be handed over a parcha containing only some of the particulars is not required to be handed over. The parcha is required to be delivered before the owner of the sugarcane leaves the weighbridge. He actually removes the cart twice from it, once after its gross weight is taken and next after its tare is taken, but he leaves the weigh-bridge, within the meaning of the rule, when he departs from the purchasing centre. His leaving the weigh-bridge with the loaded cart in order to unload it is not leaving the weigh-bridge contemplated by the rule. The view taken by the appellate court that the parcha is required to be handed over twice, once after giving certain particulars and again after giving the rest of the particulars is not supported by anything contained in Rules 96 and 97. There is no warrant for the supposition that the parcha is required to be delivered twice; there is also no warrant for the supposition that the parcha should be taken back when the unloaded cart is brought for reweighment. The tare of the cart can be given on the parcha only after the unloaded cart is weighed, therefore, unless the cart is unloaded and brought back to the weigh-bridge the tare cannot be noted in the parcha and the parcha is not ready for delivery and no offence is committed if it is not delivered at that stage. The tare of the cart can be given on the parcha only after the unloaded cart is weighed, therefore, unless the cart is unloaded and brought back to the weigh-bridge the tare cannot be noted in the parcha and the parcha is not ready for delivery and no offence is committed if it is not delivered at that stage. There is no compulsion upon the owner of the cart to retain the parcha if given to him after noting only some of the particulars and to return it to the owner of the factory or the purchasing agent for noting the remaining particulars. If it were meant that the parcha should be delivered to him immediately on weighment of the loaded cart with only some of the particulars and that the remaining particulars should be noted on it when the unloaded cart is weighed, there should have been some rule making it obligatory upon the owner of the cart to preserve the parcha and to return it to the occupier of the factory or his purchasing agent. The absence of any such rule shows that it was not the intention that he should deliver the parcha before all the entries are completed i.e., before the unloaded cart is weighed. The particulars (a) to (d) are to be noted in the parcha as soon as the loaded cart is weighed the gross weight of the loaded cart is to be noted on the parcha while the loaded cart is still standing on the weigh-bridge, the tare of the cart is to be noted on the parcha while the unloaded cart is still standing on the weigh-bridge and the remaining particulars are to be noted as soon as the unloaded cart is weighed. When all these particulars are noted down the parcha becomes a parcha referred to in R. 96 and then it be comes the duty of the occupier of the factory or his purchasing agent at the purchasing centre to deliver it to the owner of the cane or his authorised agent. There can be no question of infringement of R. 97 before the parcha becomes ready for delivery. In the present case the parcha did not become ready for delivery for the simple reason that Ghasita Singh did not bring the unloaded cart for ascertaining its tare. 4. There can be no question of infringement of R. 97 before the parcha becomes ready for delivery. In the present case the parcha did not become ready for delivery for the simple reason that Ghasita Singh did not bring the unloaded cart for ascertaining its tare. 4. The second reason is that the applicant is neither the occupier of the factory nor a purchasing agent. It is not the prosecution case that he has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or that the affairs are entrusted to him as a Manager, a Managing Director etc. There is also no proof that he has been licenced under the Act to act as a purchasing agent. Only an occupier of a factory or a purchasing agent is made responsible for the preparation of the parcha. R. 97 does not specify the person on whom lies the duty of delivering the parcha, after noting all the particulars, to the owner of the sugarcane but it can be assumed that the duty is cast upon the person on whom rests the duty of its preparation. It cannot be assumed that the duty of the delivery is cast upon a weighment clerk or any other person who is not made responsible for the preparation at all. A weighment clerk is employed by the occupier of the factory simply to weigh carts and no duty has been imposed on him by the law; he is, therefore, not charged with the duty of making entries in a parcha. Unless he is charged with the duty, he cannot be held responsible for non-delivery of the purcha. At the most the occupier of the factory or his purchasing agent would be guilty under Sec. 22 if no parcha is delivered to the owner of the sugarcane. 5. The application is allowed. The applicant's conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded.