ORDER 1. This is a criminal revision against conviction of the applicants under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with M.P. Food Grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order 1959. 2. Both the applicants were found to be transporting in bullock carts food grains weighing more than 10 maunds from village Rupkheda to village Sotiya Kallan, a village just 5 miles away from the Border of Bombay State. Both these villages have been found to be within the border area a defined in M.P. Food-grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order 1959 There is oral and documentary evidence in this respect and the applicant have also admitted before the trying Magistrate that the grains were being taken from Rupkheda to Sotiya Kallan. 3. The trying Magistrate convicted the applicants and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 200. The appellate Court upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. The applicants have now come up in revision. At the time of argument they did not appear. I therefore heard the learned Government Advocates. 4. The defence of the applicants amongst other thing was that they were taking the grains to a village market and as such they come under the proviso to section 3 which exempts from punishment the transport of food grains from a village in the border area to the nearest grain market (Mandi) in the State of Madhya Pradesh whether such market is within or outside the border area. 5. About the fact that the two applicants were transporting the food-grains from Rupkheda to village Sutiya Kallan, there is ample evidence. That was never Challenged in the trial Court and there is clinching evidence in this connection. The only point for consideration is whether they were carrying the food grains to a Mandi as contemplated in proviso to section 3 of the M.P. Food Grains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order 1959. 6. Market (Mandi) has not been defined in the M.P. Food Grains Order 1959. When the legislature exempted transport of food grains to the market it should have taken pains to define the same. In the absence of such a definition we have to take the common meaning of the word. In the Oxford Universal-Dictionary illustrated, 3rd Edi. Vol. 1 the meaning of the word given is. When the legislature exempted transport of food grains to the market it should have taken pains to define the same. In the absence of such a definition we have to take the common meaning of the word. In the Oxford Universal-Dictionary illustrated, 3rd Edi. Vol. 1 the meaning of the word given is. "The meeting together of people for the purchase and sale of provisions or live stock, publicly exposed, at a fixed time and place, which also means an open place or covered building in which cattle, provisions etc. are exposed for sale." In Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, New mid-century version, market is defined as under:- "A periodic concourse of people for the purpose of buying and selling, a building square or other public place used .for such meetings, a shop, a region in which there is a demand for goods; buying and selling, demand, state of being on sale; bargain, sale, rate of sale, value, to deal at a market." It has come out in evidence which has been accepted by the Courts below that the applicants were carrying grains to one of the shops for the purpose of sale. There is also evidence to the effect that there are two shops at village Sotiya Kallan where food-grains are sold. 7. The learned Government Advocate contended that only two shops cannot constitute a market. There should be a number of shops and assemblage of number of persons. I am afraid the dictionary' meaning which I have already quoted does not place such a restriction. 8. According to Osborn's the Concise Law Dictionary 4th Edi. "In the city of London every weekday is market day and every shop is a market overt (open market). According to, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, market means "a place of commercial activity in which articles are bought and sold." 9. The only question therefore is whether people gather at that particular place for the purchase and sale of food-grains. There might be two shops and the market may be small. There is no limit to the number of shops. In my opinion only one shop where sale and purchase of grains take place can also be called a market. What we have to see in order to find whether there is a market or not is whether it is a place where people gather for purchase and sale. There is no limit to the number of shops. In my opinion only one shop where sale and purchase of grains take place can also be called a market. What we have to see in order to find whether there is a market or not is whether it is a place where people gather for purchase and sale. The village might be a small village and may not be a big market where number of grain shops exists. Two grains shops may be sufficient to constitute a market. 10. I cannot agree with the appellate Court when it says "a grain shop does not constitute a grain-market, nor a shop which deals in grain with the agriculturists became a grain market". It is found by the Courts below that the applicants were carrying food-grains to the village Sotiya Kallan where there were two shops dealing in food-grains. If that is the position the applicants clearly come under the proviso to section 3 of the M.P. Food-grains (Restriction on Barder Movement) Order 1959. They are therefore entitled to an acquittal. 11. The result is the revision petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the applicants are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine, if paid be refunded to them. The order regarding confiscation for food-grains is also set aside. If the grains have been sold, the price may be paid to the applicants.