DAVE., J.—This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarb, dated the 20th February, 1961, acquitting all the four accused, namely, Shobhalal, Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal of the offence under sec. 7 read with sec. 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. The prosecution story in this case was that on the 12th July, I959> the three accused namely, Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal were seen taking 6 bags of wheat on three camels at village Jat, which was within the territory of Madhya Pradesh. P. W. Sachidanand, head constable, interrogated them as to what was contained in the bags. Thereupon, they said that the bags contained wheat. On further interrogation, they stated that they were bringing the bags from village Dorai and were taking them to the house of Moolchand Mahajan at village Jat. Since the wheat was transported from the territory of Rajasthan and its movement outside the territory was prohibited, a case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was registered. It was found that the said wheat was moved by accused Shobhalal and the other three accused, who were employed by him, were only its carriers. After investigation, all the four accused were prosecuted in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun. 3. The accused admitted that the wheat was brought from village Dorai and that the bags were seized at village Jat. They, however, pleaded that the wheat was being taken to Nimbahera which was within the territory of Rajasthan itself. The trial court came to the conclusion that accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal had committed an offence under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which will hereinafter be referred as the Act, and therefore they were convicted and sentenced to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Accused Shobhalal was convicted under sec. 8 of the Act and sentenced to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of the payment of fine, all the four accused were ordered to undergo 6 months further R. I. All the six bags of the wheat were also ordered to be confiscated. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 19th December, 1960, all the four accused preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh. 1000/-. In default of the payment of fine, all the four accused were ordered to undergo 6 months further R. I. All the six bags of the wheat were also ordered to be confiscated. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 19th December, 1960, all the four accused preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh. The learned Judge observed that the prosecution was unable to refer to him any order passed by the State of Rajasthan prohibiting the movement of wheat, nor was it able to refer to any order of the Collector, Chittorgarh, and therefore it could not be said if the accused had committed any offence. It was also observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence only on a report in writing by a public servant and as no such report was made, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was not legal. It was only on these two grounds that the appeals were allowed and the conviction and sentences of the accused were set aside. The learned Judge did not care to go into the merits of the case. 5. It is contended by learned Assistant Government Advocate that both the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are wrong. It is pointed out by him that the Central Government had passed an Order called the Rajasthan Food-grains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959, and that all the four accused had contravened Clause 4 thereof. 6. We find that the said Order was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 3 of the Act and that Order was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 1st September, 1960, under Notification No.G.S.R. 432, (No.204 (Raj.) 1/287/59-PY- 11). 7. Clause 2 of the said Order defined "internal, border area" as meaning the area within five miles belt all along the Border of the State of Rajasthan adjoining the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bombay. 7. Clause 2 of the said Order defined "internal, border area" as meaning the area within five miles belt all along the Border of the State of Rajasthan adjoining the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bombay. Clause 3 of the said Order further provided that no person shall transport, attempt to transport or abet the transport of wheat (a)to any place in the internal bonder area from any place outside that area, or (b) from any place in the internal border area to any place outside that area, or (c) from any place in the internal border area to any other place in that area, except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. 8. It is clear from the, provisions of the said Order referred to above, that the accused were not authorised to transport wheat from village Dorai which was admittedly within the internal border area, to village Jat, which was outside the territory of Rajasthan. It is proved by the prosecution evidence that village Dorai was within the five miles belt of the border of the State of Rajasthan. The correctness of this fact is not contested by learned counsel for the accused. It is clear that the learned Sessions Judge was, not correct in holding that no order prohibiting the movement of wheat was passed by competent authority. It was unfortunate that the prosecution could not place the said Order before that court. 9. As regards the second ground taken by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused, it is true that sec. 11 of the Act debarred the courts from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts, constituting such offence made by a person who was a public servant as defined in sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, but the learned Judge was not correct in holding that such a report was not made by a public servant. We find that the report was made by the Station House Officer, Shri Deepchand, who appeared in the witness-box and stated that he was a public servant in the employ of the Rajasthan State. It appears that the learned Judge has wrongly relied upon A. P. Misra Vs. The State(1) in support of his view. We find that the report was made by the Station House Officer, Shri Deepchand, who appeared in the witness-box and stated that he was a public servant in the employ of the Rajasthan State. It appears that the learned Judge has wrongly relied upon A. P. Misra Vs. The State(1) in support of his view. The perusal of that case shows that the necessary facts constituting the offence were not related in the charge-sheet. We find that in the present case all the necessary facts-constituting the offence were recited. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge did not peruse the detailed report which was made on the reverse of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the accused has himself not been able to support the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. It is thus clear that both the grounds on which the accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge were not correct and his order is fit to be set aside. 10. We would have remanded the case in the normal course to be decided on merits, but we find that the facts are not in dispute and therefore an order of remand would only mean harassment to the accused. All the three accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal admitted that the 6 bags of wheat were brought from Dorai and were seized at village Jat. • Accused Sohanlal no doubt denied all knowledge of the occurrence, but all the three accused have stated that the wheat was sent with them by Sohanlal. P. W. Sachidanand has stated that all the three accused had given the same version when they were interrogated by him at village Jat. He also says that accused Shobhalal arrived at village Jat following the other three accused and at that time the other accused again pointed out that it was Shobhalal who had brought the wheat. Thereupon, accused Shobhalal told the witness that the matter should be settled because the wheat brought by mistake. He also admitted that he was not in possession of any permit. Shobhalals father Chater Singh has also appeared as a prosecution witness and admitted that all the bags of wheat were sent from his shop at Dorai. 11. The main defence put forward by all the accused was that the wheat was being taken to Nimbahera which was a Mandi. Shobhalals father Chater Singh has also appeared as a prosecution witness and admitted that all the bags of wheat were sent from his shop at Dorai. 11. The main defence put forward by all the accused was that the wheat was being taken to Nimbahera which was a Mandi. It has been urged by learned counsel for the accused that according to clause 5(iv) of the order referred above, clause 3 was not applicable if the wheat was transported from a village in the internal border area to the nearest grain market, i.e. Mandi in the State of Rajasthan. We have given due consideration to this argument and in our opinion the accused cannot claim acquittal on this ground because the wheat was moved from the internal border area within Rajasthan to a place outside the State of Rajasthan. More-over,the nearest Mandi, according to P.W. Chater Singh, was Chittorgarh and not Nimbahera. 12. It is therefore proved beyond any manner of doubt that all the three accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal had committed an offence under sec. 7 of the Act and accused Shobhalal has abetted it and he had committed an offence under sec. 8 of the Act. 13. Now coming to the question of sentence, it is urged by learned counsel for the accused that the incident is three years old and it is proved by the prosecution evidence itself that the accused were taking the wheat to Nimbahera. The offence committed by them was only technical inasmuch as they did not obtain a permit even though they wanted to remove the grain to another place within Rajasthan and therefore the sentence of fine alone would meet the ends of justice. 14. We find from the statement of P. W. Sachidanand that when accused Bhura, Kishanlal and Gokal were interrogated, for the first time, they stated that they were taking the grain to Nimbahera. P. W. Chater Singh has also given the same statement. The offence committed by the accused was therefore technical in the sense that they did not obtain permit even though they wanted to move the grain to another Mandi within the Rajasthan State itself. Moreover, accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal were only carriers in the employ of Shobhalal and the sentence imposed upon them by the trial court was excessive. 15. The appeal is therefore allowed. Moreover, accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal were only carriers in the employ of Shobhalal and the sentence imposed upon them by the trial court was excessive. 15. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, is set aside. Accused Kishanlal, Bhura and Gokal are convicted under sec. 7 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each. In default of the payment of fine, they will undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Shobhalal is convicted under sec. 7 read with Sec. 8 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of the payment of fine, he will undergo 3 months R. I. The order of the trial court regarding confiscation of the wheat is restored. The accused are allowed one months time to pay the fine. The District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, will take steps to carry out this order.