Bedi. T. ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of criminal revision petitions, Nos. 198-D and 223-D to 233-D of 1966, as they involve almost common questions of law and fact. ( 2 ) THE facts in Cr. R. 198-D are that Tilak Raj was found to be in possession of 1107 B. P. Tron Sheets of 16 to 26 guage on 11th September, 1964. by an Inspector of Civil Supplies, Delhi on inspection of his shop. A report was made and a case against the petitioner was registered. After due investigntion, he was sent up for trial under section 7 of the Esrential Commodities Act. read with clause 4 of the lron and Steel Control Order, 1956. A charge was framed against the petitioner, but he went up in revision in the Court of Sessions which came up before Shri M. T. . Jain. Additional Sessions Tildes. Delhi, before whom clause 4 of the T"on and Steel Control Order. 1956, was relied on by the prosecution. This clause la vs down that no person shall acquire or agree to acquire any iron or steel from a producer, a stockholder or a person holding stocks of iron and steel except under the authority of, and in accordance with, the conditions of the permit issued by the Controller or under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions contained or incorporated in a general or special written order of the Controller. His attention was also drawn to notification No. 1110/ess. Comm. /lron and Steel. 4 and 5 issued under clauses 4 and 5 of the said Order, which says that anv person can acquire without permit black iron sheets or iron and steel from any stock-holder other than a registered producer or a control stock holder from stock held for a period exceeding 90 days or for a lesser period if the State Licensing Authority so orders. He, therefore, held that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner contravened the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 of the order the onus to prove which was on the prosecution, and forwarded the revision petition to this Court recommending that the charge framed against the petitioner be set aside and quashed, vide his order dated 28th April, 1986. ( 3 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The counsel for the State, however. ( 3 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The counsel for the State, however. drew my attention to section 14 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and submitted that the attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not drawn to this section which shifts the onus on the accused in certain cases. This section runs as under : - "14. Burden of proof in certain cases. .-Where a person is prosecuted for contravening any order made under section 3 which prohibits him from doing any act or being in possession of a thing without lawful authority or without a permit, licence or other document, the burden of proving that he has such authority, permit, licence or other document shall be on him". It is true that in certain cases, e. g. under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus under certain circumstances is placed on the accused, which is contrary to the general principles in Criminal cases. But the onus is not heavy to discharge. In any case, the question of applying section 14 of the Act would arise only if the notification mentioned above, issued under clauses 4 and 5 of the Iron and Steel Control Order were not in existence. This notification, I have no doubt in my mind, places the burden on the prosecution to prove certain facts if it wishes to prosecute an individual in such cases. The counsel for the State was unable to explain as to why section 14 of the Act should apply to this case. ( 4 ) NO other point was raised. T, therefore, accept the recommendation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and quash the charge framed against the petitioner.