Order.- The accused who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No: 469 of 1970 is charged by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhodan, as under: "That you, on or about 25th January, 1969, were found transporting rice from Siddapur village to Machunoor village of Maharashtra, without permit and thereby committed an offence under Clause 3(a) of the Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order read with section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and within my cognizance: And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge". 2. The accused who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No. 470 of 1970 is charged for the following offence: "That you, on or about 7th January, 1969 at about 3 A.M. you were found Andhra to Khandgoan of Maharashtra Without valid permit and you have committed an offence under clause ‘3(a) of Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order, read with section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, which is in my cognizance; And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge". 3. In the Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order of 1957 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, there is no, section 3 (a) . There is only section 3 which places restriction, on export and. import of rice and that reads as fallows: "3. Restrictions on Export and Import of Rice: (1) No person shall export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within the southern Zone except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government concerned or any officer authorised in this behalf by that Government subject to the condition that such exports under permits shall be regulated in accordance with export quotas fixed by the Central Government in this behalf from time to time. (2) No person shall import or attempt to import or abet the import of rice into any place within the Southern Zone: Provided that nothing contained in sub-clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to the export of rice from and import of rice into any place within the Southern Zone.- (i) not exceeding five seers in weight in the aggregate by a bona fide traveller as part of his luggage; or (ii) on Government account; or (iii) under and in accordance with Military Credit Notes." It is in the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 1964 Order) issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, that section 3(a) occurs which deals with ‘restriction on transport of rice to or within the border area’ and the same reads as follows: "3. (a) Restriction on transport of rice to or within, the border area. No person shall transport, attempt to transport or abet the transport of rice- (a) to any place in the border area from any place outside that area; or (b) from any place in the border area to any other place in that area except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf: Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to the transport of rice- (i) on Government account; (ii) under and in accordance with Military Credit Notes; (iii) by or on behalf of the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Food Corporations Act (XXXVII of 1964); (iv) within the town or village in the border area; (v) from a village in the border area to the nearest grain market (Mandi). in the "specified area" whether such market (mandi) is within or outside the border area; (vi) not exceeding twenty kilograms in weight in the aggregate at one time by a bona fide resident of the border area for domestic consumption; (vii) not exceeding one kilogram in weight in the aggregate by a bona fide traveller as part of his luggage: (viii) being gift rice received under the Indo U.S. Agreement on Relief Supplies, 1951, and despatched by the Regional Director (Food), Bombay, Madras or Calcutta, to a nominee of the American Voluntary Relief Agency concerned for relief purposes". 4. 4. From the charge framed against the accused in these two cases extracted above, it is clear that they were found committing an offence of transporting rice from an area within the Andhra State, to the Maharashtra State without a valid permit. This is ah offence under section 3 of the Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 1957 Order),. Under the 1964 order, then: is a further restriction on the export of rice to any place in the border area from any place outside that area and also from any place within the border area to any other place in that area except in accordance with at permit issued by the State Government, Section 3 also regulates export of rice in a specified area except under a permit. The finding of the Magistrate as well a,s that of the Sessions Judge on appeal is that the accused were found moving rice within the belt area without a permit. That is an offence only under the 1964 order and not under 1957 order. The accused were not charged with the Offence of transporting rice or moving the rice within the belt area. The defence to such a charge would be entirely different from a defence to a charge of attempting to transport rice from an area within the Southern Zone, i.e., Andhra Pradesh to an area outside the Southern Zone i.e., Maharashtra. Be that as it may when they have been charged for an offence of having been found transporting rice from the Andhra Pradesh State to Maharashtra State, they cannot be found guilty even for moving or transporting rice within the Andhra Pradesh State itself. If, according to the prosecution, transporting rice within the belt area without a permit was an offence, a specific charge to that effect ought to have been framed to which, as already observed, the accused would have a different defence from what they were called upon as the charge now stands. On the mere finding that they were moving or transporting rice between the Villages of Andhra Pradesh area, they cannot be held guilty of moving rice from Southern Zone to a place outside the Southern Zone under section 3 of the Act. 5. On the mere finding that they were moving or transporting rice between the Villages of Andhra Pradesh area, they cannot be held guilty of moving rice from Southern Zone to a place outside the Southern Zone under section 3 of the Act. 5. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have betrayed ignorance of the two distinct orders, viz., the Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order of 1957 and the Southern States (Regulation of Export) Order, 1964. The Magistrate should have mentioned specifically whether the charge was framed under the 1957 order or 1964 order. From the title of the order mentioned in the charge, it would appear that it was under the rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order of 1957, but from the section referred, in the charge it would appear as if the charge was under the Southern States (Regulation of Export) Order, 1964, while the content of the order would disclose that it was 1957 order and not 1964 order. Even the learned Sessions Judge did not notice this serious lacuna in the charge. 6. The accused, however, are entitled to take advantage of this fact. When they were charged for attempting to transporting rice from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra, they cannot be found guilty of moving the stock of rice from one village of Andhra to another village in the same State. In view of the charge framed by the Magistrate, the accused are entitled to an acquittal. The conviction and sentence passed against them are, therefore, set aside. These Criminal Revision Cases are accordingly allowed. The entire confiscated property and, if the stock of paddy is sold, the proceeds thereof may be returned to the accused forthwith. A.B.K. ----- Revision allowed.