Order.- The petitioners were convicted under clause 3-A (b) of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 read with section 7 (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and they were further convicted under rule 3 of the Mysore Foodgrains (Regulation ofTransport of Foodgrains) Order, 1966 read with section 7 (a) [it) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 by the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Nanjangud. 2. The facts that have given rise to the prosecution of the petitioners are these: On 17th November, 1971, at about 1 a.m. on Gundlupet Sulthan Batheri Road near 30 kilometre stone from Gundlupet in Berambadi State Forest in the limits of Gundlupet Taluk, the petitioners were found transporting 82 quintals of boiled rice to Kerala State from Mysore State without a permit in Lorry No. MYD. 5352. On these facts the prosecution alleged that the petitioners were transporting rice in the border area from the State of Mysore to the State of Kerala, and thereby contravened the provisions of clause 3-A (b) of Order 1964 and rule 3 of Order 1966 punishable under section 7 (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The evidence in this case consists in the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2. These are two police officials. Their evidence is that when they were coming from Mangalore on the night in question at about 1 a.m. they found a lorry No. MYD 5352 coming from the direction of Gundlupet towards Sulthan-Bathety near 30 kilometre stone at Berambadi State Forest. They stopped the lorry and found the 1st petitioner driving the lorry and the 2nd petitioner seated in the lorry. On checking, they found 82 quintals of boiled rice. When they demanded the petitioners to produce the transport permit, they failed to do so. They seized the lorry with the rice, arrested the petitioners and took them to Gundlupet by about 3-30 a.m. and lodged a complaint against the petitioners. 4. On checking, they found 82 quintals of boiled rice. When they demanded the petitioners to produce the transport permit, they failed to do so. They seized the lorry with the rice, arrested the petitioners and took them to Gundlupet by about 3-30 a.m. and lodged a complaint against the petitioners. 4. If transport of rice is made in the border area without a permit and the vehicle and the goods are seized after the vehicle travels, for some distance within the border area and if there is no evidence with regard to the transport of rice from any place outside the border area, a conviction could be based for an offence of transport of rice without a permit from a place within the border area to any other place in that area, namely under sub-clause (b) of Clause 3-A of the Order, 1964. Even if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is accepted, it shows that they found the lorry in question in the border area. Proviso (iv) to sub-clause (b) of Clause 3-A provides that the prohibition imposed in clause (b) is not applicable if rice is transported within the same town or village in the border area. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were working as police officials at the relevant point of time in Mangalore, and it could be gathered from their evidence that they did not know the topography of the area in which the lorry was moving. They were total strangers to that area; they were unable to give the number of villages that are located in that area; and they were not in a position to state the distance of the nearest village from the place where the lorry was stopped. One striking feature of this case is that the evidence of these two witnesses does not show that the movement of the lorry was from place to place in the border area. What all that evidence proves is that they found a lorry coming from the side of Gundlupet, they stopped that lorry, and according to them, that that place was within the border area. As contended by Mr. Karunakaran, it is possible to hold from the evidence of these two witnesses that the lorry might have been well stopped when it was moving in a village. As contended by Mr. Karunakaran, it is possible to hold from the evidence of these two witnesses that the lorry might have been well stopped when it was moving in a village. The burden of proving that the food-grains was being transported from a place in the border area to any other place in the border area is on the prosecution. That burden not having been discharged in this case, the Court below was not justified in basing a conviction under clause 3-A (b) of the said Order. 5. So far as the conviction for contravening rule 3 of Order, 1966 is concerned, we have again got to go back upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Their evidence is that they stopped the lorry at about 1 a.m. They did not give out the exact time. Even in the mahazar the recital is to the effect that it was about 1 a.m. The movement of foodgrains is prohibited under this Order between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. In a case where it could be an offence only if the act is committed at a particular period of time, it would be obligatory on the part of the Prosecution to establish satisfactorily that such an act had been committed during that period of time. The time given by these two witnesses is not precise and it might as well been before 11 p.m. also. These two witnesses have not given evidence with reference to the watch if they had one. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the lorry had been found transporting rice at some time between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. 6. For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the prosecution has not established its case, and therefore the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below cannot be sustained. This revision petition is allowed, and the conviction and the sentence awarded are set aside. The fine amount if it has been already been paid by the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to them.