ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicants were convicted by the SDM, 1st Class, Padrauna at Kasia, district Deoria for having contravened Clause 3 of the UP Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959 and Clause 4 of the UP Coarse Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1966 and each of them was sentenced to 4 months' RI and to a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo 15 days' further RI. The foodgrain involved in the case was directed to be forfeited. 2. On appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentences of the Applicants. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants. 4. According to the prosecution Applicants were found transporting grain without any permit in contravention of Clause 3(1) of the UP Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959 and Clause 4 of the UP Coarse Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1966. On 29-11-1966 at about 1 p.m. Applicants were found carrying grains on their bullock-carts towards the Province of Bihar in village Babania which lies in the border area. Applicants were arrested and 16 bags of coarse rice and 14 bags of maize were seized. 5. The defence of the Applicants was that one of them viz. Raj Mangal, who is a resident of Padrauna, holds cultivation in village Bankata in the Province of Bihar and that he was getting the grain brought to his house at Padrauna, that there was no necessity of any permit and the other three Applicants were transporting the grain on his behalf to the aforesaid town of Padrauna. 6. The trial Magistrate rejecting the defence convicted the Applicants. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal held that even if the statement of Raj Mangal is accepted that he was the owner of the grains and that it was being taken to the Padrauna Mandi it will not absolve the Applicants from the penalty because Raj Mangal had not stated that he was taking the grains to Mandi for sale. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal held that even if the statement of Raj Mangal is accepted that he was the owner of the grains and that it was being taken to the Padrauna Mandi it will not absolve the Applicants from the penalty because Raj Mangal had not stated that he was taking the grains to Mandi for sale. The learned Judge was of opinion that as the statement of Raj Mangal did not indicate that he was taking the grains for sale in the market of Padrauna, the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Movement Order and to Rule 4 of the Coarse Foodgrains Movement Order did not come into play and the Applicants could not derive any benefit from the same. 8. The relevant part of the proviso to Rule 3 of the UP Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959 reads: Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to the transport of foodgrains- (iv) from a village in the border area to the nearest grain market (mandi) in the State of UP whether such market (mandi) is within or outside the border area; It will be noticed that the words 'for sale' do not occur in the proviso. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with the courts below that a person can take benefit of the proviso only if he was transporting the grain to the mandi for sale. To put that interpretation on the proviso, will be reading certain words which are not to be found in the proviso. It is, therefore, obvious that if it is held that Raj Mangal was getting it transported from a village in the border area to the nearest mandi of Padrauna then the Applicants had committed no offence as they are protected under the proviso to Clause 3 of the aforesaid Order. It may be noticed that a similar proviso is to be found to Clause 4 of the Coarse Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order which protects the movement of coarse grains from a village in the border area to the nearest market within the UP for sale. The fact that as the maize, which is a coarse grain, was being transported in sufficient quantity to the town of Padrauna it will be reasonable to presume that it was being transported for sale in that grain market. The fact that as the maize, which is a coarse grain, was being transported in sufficient quantity to the town of Padrauna it will be reasonable to presume that it was being transported for sale in that grain market. In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the Applicants had committed no offence and their conviction and sentence is not sustainable. 9. In the result this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the Applicants are set aside. Applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. Fine, if paid by them shall be refunded. The price of the seized grain shall be handed over to the Applicant Raj Mangal in case it has not been paid to him.