JUDGMENT Sarkar, J.- l. Of these two appeals, one is by Gyarsi Lal, who was convicted for breach of cl. 3(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, and the other by the State of Madhya Pradesh arising out of the same proceedings in which Gyarsi Lal was convicted. We will deal with Gyarsi Lal's appeal first. 2. It is not in dispute that Gyarsi Lal has acted as commission agent of certain people and purchased various quantities of food grains for them from the Mandi (market) and supplied these to them, It was said that in doing this he had stored goods for sale and also sold them without a licence and so committed the offence of which he was convicted. The Order stated, in substance so for as material for our purpose, that no one shall sell or store for sale either on his own account or as a commission agent certain goods in quantities above a specified limit. 3. The only question is: Did Gyarsi Lal sell any goods or store them for sale? It is not a case of the commission agency being governed by any custom. Therefore, it was a simple purchase by an agent for his principal. When Gyarsi Lal purchased the goods from the Mandi, the property in them vested in his principal. Therefore, it was not possible for him in law to sell them to his principals. It cannot be said that Gyarsi Lal had sold any goods to his principals. If he had not sold, neither could he be said to have stored them for sale to them, Gyarsi Lal committed no breach of the Order and his conviction was unwarranted. The question might have been different if he was charged with the offence of purchasing the goods but he was not so charged. 4. We turn now to the second appeal. It appears that in the High Court there was some dispute as to the correct procedure which should have been followed in the Courts below and the High Court felt that the correct procedure had not been followed. Therefore, the High Court set aside the conviction by the Courts below it and remanded the case for further trial according to what the High Court considered to be the correct procedure. Therefore, the High Court set aside the conviction by the Courts below it and remanded the case for further trial according to what the High Court considered to be the correct procedure. The question of procedure does not arise in these appeals as we have held that on the facts the appellant Gyarsi Lal could not be convicted of the offences with which he had been charged and, therefore, there is no point in sending the case back for further, trial according to a certain procedure. 5. In the result, we direct that Gyarsi Lal be acquitted. If he has paid the fine that will be refunded to him and he is on bail, the bail bond will be cancelled.