Judgment: The only question that arises in this appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Gift Goods (Prevention of Unlawful Possession) Act, 1965, hereinafter called “the Act”, is whether the respondent is a person on behalf of the State or Central Government to whom the gift goods have been supplied. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State strenuously contended that the respondent must be deemed to be a representative of the State or the Central Government in relation to the gift goods in question which, on the findings recorded by the trial Court, were sold by him in contravention of the terms and conditions specified in section 3 of the Act. Mr. A. Gangadhara Rao appearing for the respondent, relying upon the definition of “gift goods” as defined in section 2 of the Act, contended that though the goods in question were supplied by way of a gift by one of the relief organisations mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, the respondent is not a person who received the said goods on behalf of the State or Central Government and it is only a sale, purchase or transport of goods supplied by way of gift to any State Government or Central Government for to any other person on behalf of such Government that would attract the penal provisions of the Act. 3. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination is whether the respondent acted on behalf of the State Government or the Central Government in accepting the goods supplied by way of gift by one or the other relief organisations referred to in the Schedule appended to the Act. Section 2 says that unless the context otherwise requires, “gift goods” means any of the items referred to as items (i) to (ix) under Clause (a) of section 2 supplied by way of gift, by any relief organisation to any State Government or to the Central Government or to any other person on behalf of such Government. There is no dispate as to the fact that the goods in question are gift goods; for, the item seized is item No. (viii) i.e., bulgur wheat. There is no dispate as to the fact that the goods in question are gift goods; for, the item seized is item No. (viii) i.e., bulgur wheat. The lower Court also found from the evidence or record that it is a case of sale of bulgur wheat by the respondent to a third party and therefore, it is doubtless an unauthorised sale. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provides that any breach of a rule made under sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees. 4. The case of the prosecution is that it is not permissible under section 3 either to sell, purchase or transport gift goods without the previous permission and any one contravening the terms of the provision shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment as provided in sub-section (2). Though sub-section (1) of section 3 speaks of prohibition of sale, purchase or transport of gift goods without the permission of “such authority” and subject to such conditions as may be specified, it is not known in the absence of any Rules who that “such authority” is and what conditions have been specified or prescribed in the matter of sale., purchase or transport of goods. Assuming that it is a case of sale of the goods referred to in section 2, the question is whether the respondent is liable for punishment. What is prohibited is sale of gift goods supplied by any relief organisation mentioned in the Schedule to any State Government or the Central Government or to any other person on behalf of such Government. Unless it is established by the prosecution that the respondent is a person who received the gift goods on behalf of the State Govenment or the Central Government, the sale made by him of the goods supplied by one of the relief organisations mentioned in the Schedule will not attract the penal provisions contained in section 3. 5. The Public Prosecutor placed strong reliance on Exhibits P-57 and P-58 and also upon Exhibit P-74, a letter of the Government of India dated 25th and 27th July, 1951, to show that the respondent received the goods on behalf of either the State Government or the Central Government. Exhibit P-74 does not indicate that the respondent was authorised or directed to receive the goods on behalf of the State or the Central Government. Exhibit P-74 does not indicate that the respondent was authorised or directed to receive the goods on behalf of the State or the Central Government. It should be clearly borne in mind that the suppliers of the gift goods are the organisations which have their headquarters in the United States of America. They supply the gift goods not only to the State Government or the Central Government or to any other authorised representatives of theirs, but also to some other social service organisations. It is the case of the prosecution that, as per the terms of the It do-American Agreement dated 9th July, 1951, certain relief organisations such as Church World Service, Luthern World Relief, CARE etc., have taken up relief works in India through their agents viz., National Christian Council Relief Committee which has its headquarters at Madras and which also looks after the relief works in Andhra Pradesh and other southern States. The respondent was appointee as an agent or a contact person of the National Christian Council Relief Committee to carry out the object of the relief organisations viz., to distribute food articles in accordance with the directions of the aforesaid committee. It is true that the respondent, who was charged with the duty of distributing food articles to the poor and needy employed in certain relief works, has chosen to abuse that position and diverted the food articles to a third party for consideration. It may be a case of betrayal of trust reposed in him. But that will rot render him liable for punishment under the provisions of the Act inters he is shown to have received the goods from the suppliers either or behalf of the State Government or the Central Government. The Contact Personal’s Manual (Exhibit P-57) and the Distributor’s Manual (Exhibit P-58), which lay down the procedure for food distribution, nowhere indicate that the respondent acted on behalf of the State Government or the Central Government in receiving the food articles gifted by any one of the relief organisations referred to in the Schedule. If the respondent had received the gifted goods from any relief organisation either on behalf of any State Government or the Central Government and sold them, such a sale would bring him within the clutchess of the penal provision. If the respondent had received the gifted goods from any relief organisation either on behalf of any State Government or the Central Government and sold them, such a sale would bring him within the clutchess of the penal provision. If there is a contravention of the procedure for food distribution as laid down in Exhibits P-57 and P-58 by any agent or a contact, person of the relief organisation, it is a matter between the concerned relief organisation and its contact persons and not a matter which comes within the mischief of section 3 of the Act. It cannot therefore, be said that the sale in the instant case by the respondent as a contact person or as a representative of a relief organisation is a “sale” attracting the penal provisions of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly construed sections 2 and 3 of the Act and acquitted the respondent. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no grounds for interference. This appeal preferred by the State is accordingly dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Appeal dismissed.