JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This revision reveals the unfortunate effect of hasty legislation of even punitive nature like the U. P. Rice (Levy) Order, 1965 published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated November 19, 1965. The applicant, who is a 'licensed miller' was convicted for breach of rule 3 (3) of the U. P. Rice (Levy) Order, 1965, which, in its turn, was framed under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default to undergo 30 days R. I. 2. Rule 2 (d) defines 'Licensed dealer' to mean "a person holding a valid licence under the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964." Likewise clause (e) defines the term 'Licensed miller' which means "the owner or other person in charge of a rice mill holding a valid licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1968." 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the applicant, it is necessary to reproduce the material portions of Rule 3, which are as under :- "3. (1) Every licensed miller shall sell to the State Government at the scheduled prices sixty per cent (60 per cent) of ......... rice produced or manufactured by him in his rice mill every day ....." "(2) Every licensed dealer shall sell to the State Government at the scheduled prices. (a) sixty per cent (60 per cent) of ........ rice produced or got milled by him out of his stocks of paddy every day ........ (b) Sixty per cent (60 per cent) of ........................ rice coming into his possession for sale or disposal through him on commission basis or in any other manner by him every day .............. (a) sixty per cent (60 per cent) of ........ rice produced or got milled by him out of his stocks of paddy every day ........ (b) Sixty per cent (60 per cent) of ........................ rice coming into his possession for sale or disposal through him on commission basis or in any other manner by him every day .............. " (3) No licensed miller or licensed dealer shall sell or otherwise dispose of or remove to any other place than his usual place of business or storage in a particular locality his stocks of rice unless he has sold the prescribed percentage to the State Government under Sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2) as the case may be, and obtained release certificate in token thereof in respect of stocks left in balance with him." (4) Every licensed dealer who comes into possession of any stock of rice, as an agent of any other person otherwise than for the purpose of sale or disposal, shall- (a) furnish full particulars of the owner of such stock to the Controller or such other person as may be authorised by him in this behalf; (b) furnish proof, when so required, to the satisfaction of the Controller or such other person as may be authorised by him in this behalf that the licensed dealer has no power of sale or disposal over the stock; and (c) retain the stock in his possession until a direction is received by him from the Controller." 4. From the above quoted provisions of rule 3 (4) (b) it is clear that in the case of a 'licensed dealer' who comes into possession of any stock of rice, as an agent of any other person otherwise than for the purpose of sale or disposal, can satisfy the Controller or his nominee that he (licensed dealer) has no power of sale or disposal over the stock; in which event, the Controller may exempt the licensed dealer from compulsorily selling to the State Government sixty per cent or, for the matter of that, any other quantity of rice in his possession, belonging to a third person. Nevertheless, no such provisions has been made in the case of a 'licensed miller' which is most unequitable and must result in miscarriage of justice, for in spite of the fact that he is neither the owner of nor has he any power of disposal over the stock of rice lying in his possession for the sole purpose of milling, he would still be compelled to sell to the State Government, at the scheduled price, 60 per cent of the rice produced or manufactured by him in his -rice mill every day. 5. In the instant case, the applicant, who was merely a 'licensed miller' and was holding a stock of rice belonging to a third person for the sole purpose of milling, has been found guilty under rule 3 (3) of the U. P. Rice (Levy) Order, 1965 for not selling to the State Government 60 per cent of the rice manufactured or produced by him in his mill. The rule is most unreasonable, and has to be struck down for sheer irrationality and illegality. 6. Accordingly, I allow the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant. If he has already paid the fine, the same shall be refunded to the applicant. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Government.