Order.- This is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge Chittoor in Crl. A. No. 32 of 1970 confirming the order of the District Revenue Officer, Chittoor directing confiscation of the goods belonging to the petitioner under section 6(c)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. On 11th August, 1969, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies, Chittoor found a lorry M.D.J. 2550 at Balijakandriga hamlet of Krishnajammapuram in the border area of Andhra Pradesh proceeding towards R.K. Pet of Tamil Nadu. On detaining the lorry he found that it was loaded with 4.30 quintals of Sajja, 18 quintals of ragi, 1.74 quintals of Jowar and 4.50 quintals of paddy. As they had no permit for transporting foodgrains or a permit for taking them to Tamil Nadu, the Deputy Superintendent of Police considered that there was violation of Clause 3(a) of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 and clauses 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965, both punishable under section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act and seized the goods and laid information before the District Revenue Officer for confiscation of the goods as per the provisions of section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act. The owner of the goods one P.K. Natesa Mudali claimed that the seizure was at a mile away from the Andhra Pradesh State, that he is an agriculturist, that the transport of foodgrains was from a place in Tamil Nadu Proddaturpet, to another place, Ammur in North Arcot District also in Tamil Nadu at a distance of 20 miles from Athimanjeripet and therefore, no offence has been committed. Both the grounds have been held against him and there was an order directing confiscation. This was confirmed by the District Judge in Appeal. Hence this petition. 3. The contention that the lorry was stopped and the grain was seized about a mile away from the border in Andhra Pradesh is not now pressed. It is only urged that as the goods were being carried from one place to another place in Tamil Nadu and were only passings through a certain area in Andhra Pradesh while in transit, no offence is committed. 4. It is only urged that as the goods were being carried from one place to another place in Tamil Nadu and were only passings through a certain area in Andhra Pradesh while in transit, no offence is committed. 4. The fact that the lorry was stopped at Balijakhandriga in Andhra Pradesh State while it was proceeding from Proddaturpet in Tamil Nadu to Ammur in North Arcot District also in Tamil Nadu is not now in dispute. The contravention is said to relate to paddy, governed by the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 and the other coarse grains like Sajja, Ragi and Jowar governed by Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965. Under clause 3 of the Southern States (Regula-tion of Export of Rice) Order, no person shall export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area, or transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area or from any place in the area to any other place outside the area. Similarly, under clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, no person shall transport to any place in the border area from any place outside that area, or from any place in the border area to any other place in that area any of the coarse grains, except under a permit. A reading of the provisions shows that any transport of the goods from outside the area into the area or from the area to any place outside the area without the necessary permit is prohibited under the provisions of both the orders. As pointed out in Govindraj, In re1, “Transport” means transport from the starting point to the ultimate destination and merely passing through a place in the course of journey does not amount to transporting to that place. While “export” is defined in both the provisions as taking from any place within the State of Andhra Pradesh, to another place outside, “Transport” has not been defined. While “export” is defined in both the provisions as taking from any place within the State of Andhra Pradesh, to another place outside, “Transport” has not been defined. But the intendment of both the provisions appear to be the prohibition of either importing into any area of Andhra Pradesh from outside or exporting from any place in the State to outside the area and the transport involved therein and not the mere transport through the area from any part outside Andhra Pradesh to another part outside the State. Balijakhandriga hamlet of Krishnajammapuram within the State of Andhra Pradesh, appears to be an enclave surrounded on all sides by Tamil Nadu territory and therefore the transport of the Foodgrains from Proddaturpet in Tamil Nadu to Ammur again in Tamil Nadu necessitated passing through this enclave. As it is found that grains sought to be confiscated were only in transit and had to pass through the Andhra Pradesh State area, such movement without permits cannot offend the provisions of either of the orders pointed out above. Therefore, the grain cannot be directed to be confiscated. 5. In the result, the orders of both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Sessions Judge are set aside and the grains are directed to be delivered to the party from whom they were seized. If sold the money realised will be paid to the petitioner. K.N.R. ----- Order set aside.