JDUGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---These appeals have filed by the State against the order of acquittal recorded by the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Case Nos. 159/P of 1973, 163/P of 1973, 164/P of 1973 and 165/P of 1973 respectively in which the accused in the respective cases were charged for offences for offences under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. 2. There is a firm by name Messrs. Raichand Dungarshi Co. The office of this firm is situate in a cubical of 10 x 10 on the first floor of Motiwal Building, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. In the same premises there is also the office of M/s. Satishkumar Co. But in the present group of appeals we are not concerned with that firm. Virchand Raichand, who is accused No. 8 in the first case is the and accused No. 2 in the remaining three cases and his mother are the partners in this firm of M/s. Raichand Dungarshi Co. Accused No. 1 Hirachand in the first case is the son of Virchand. In the first case, besides these two accused , there are six more accused. Of them accused No. 6 Natwarlal Mohanlal is reported to be now dead. 3. The prosecution case was that the Forward Markets Commission established under the Forward Markets (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had received information from some undisclosed source that this firm of Raichand Dungarshi Co. and some other persons were indulging in illegal forward trading and options in commodities such as silver, linseed etc. The Commission therefore deputed Devendrakumar Gupta (P.W. 2) who was working in its office as a Senior Research Assistant to Secretly make enquiries and verify the correctness of the information. It further advised him to lodge a complaint with the police if the information was found to be correct on verification. 4. Accordingly Devendrakumar Gupta is said to have made enquiries and found that the information was correct. He, therefore, lodged a complaint against this firm with Narayan Gaonkar, Sub-Inspector attached to S.B. II C.I.D. at Bombay, who was empowered to receive such complaints for offences under the Act. 5. On receiving this complaint, on 14-4-1972 S. I. Narayan Gaonkar in company of Mr. He, therefore, lodged a complaint against this firm with Narayan Gaonkar, Sub-Inspector attached to S.B. II C.I.D. at Bombay, who was empowered to receive such complaints for offences under the Act. 5. On receiving this complaint, on 14-4-1972 S. I. Narayan Gaonkar in company of Mr. Gupta and panchas, one of whom was Mohamad Hussain Mohamad Kadar (P.W. 3) raided the premises in question and at the time of file, the eight accused in the first case were said to have been present in the premises. During the search, 27 documents were seized from the premises. Besides, a search of the person of different accused was also taken and in that search, a note-book styled as Mahavir Note Book containing some papers was seized from the person accused No. 5 in the first case, and from accused No, 7 is that case a letter-book bearing No. 100 called Scholer Letter Book was seized. From person of accused No. 1 a diary bearing the inscription Prabhat on its cover page was seized. It contains on different pages spot rates of different commodities including groundnut oil prevailing on different dates and recorded in Bombay Oil Seeds and Oils Exchange Ltd., which is an Association recognised under the provisions of the Act. This diary is at Exh. D. There are two other note-books, which are marked Exhs. L and N which were among the 27 documents seized form the premises in the occupation of this firm. 6. All these documents that were seized from the premises were entrupted to Mangaldas Mavji Shah, who was then worming Junior Research Assistant with the Forward Markets Commission. On scrutiny he found that the note book marked L contained record of forward contracts in groundnut oil entered into by this firm as well as thought this firm by some third persons and the entries in the note book marked N showed that it contained record of option transactions in groundnut oil and caster seeds entered into by this firm or through this firm by some third persons at these premises. 7. Before proceeding further it may be stated here that by section 19 of the Act, contracts in the nature of option in goods have been totally prohibited and contravention of this section is made punishable under section 20(e) of the Act. 7. Before proceeding further it may be stated here that by section 19 of the Act, contracts in the nature of option in goods have been totally prohibited and contravention of this section is made punishable under section 20(e) of the Act. Similarly under the provisions of this Act read with the bye-laws framed by the said Association under the powers conferred on it under the provisions of the Act, forward trading in notified commodities in a place other than the notified and recognised place is prohibited and contravention of this provision is rendered illegal under section 15(3-A) and it is made punishable under section 20(e). Then Clause (a) of section 21 provides that any person who owns or keeps a place other than that of recognised association, which is used for the purpose of entering in to or making or performing, whether wholly or in part, any forward contracts in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act and knowingly permits such place to be used for such purposes is punishable. Similarly under Clause (c) of that section, the person who manages, controls or assist in keeping any place other than that of a recognised association which is used for the purpose of entering into or making or performing, whether wholly or in part, any forward contracts in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or at which such forward contracts are recorded or adjusted rights of liabilities arising out of such forward contracts are adjusted, regulated or enforced in any manner whatsoever is punishable. 8. Clause (e) of section 20 also makes punishable entering into any forward contract or any option in goods in contravention of any of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3-A) or sub-section (4) of section 15, section 17 or section 19. 9. In the Criminal Case No. 164/P of 1973 out of which appeal No. 1065 of 1974 arises, the firm of M/s. Raichand Dungarshi Co. and its partner Virchand Raichand were prosecuted for committing an offence under section 20(a) of the Act in that they were in the first place alleged to have entered into a double option contract which is known as Jote in Gujarati in groundnut oil for two units with one Lakhu through one Purshu on 10-11-1971. and its partner Virchand Raichand were prosecuted for committing an offence under section 20(a) of the Act in that they were in the first place alleged to have entered into a double option contract which is known as Jote in Gujarati in groundnut oil for two units with one Lakhu through one Purshu on 10-11-1971. Similarly on the same day, this firm was alleged to have entered into an option contract in Teji for 200 units of casterseeds at the rate of Rs. 137-7-0 per unit and also on 12-11-1971 entered into a Mandi option contract in caster-seeds with one Lakhu though Kishan for 200 units at the rate of Rs. 130-4-0 per unit. 10. In Criminal Case No. 165/P of 1973 the same two accused, viz. the firm and one of the partner Virchand were charged under section 20(e) for entering into on 8-4-1972 forward contract in ground nut oil for 3 units at the rate of Rs. 37-40 per 10 kg. in contravention of section 15(3-A) of the said Act read with bye-laws 330-C, 128-A and 128-C of the Bombay Oilseeds and Oils Exchange Ltd. Similarly it was alleged that on 8-4-1972 the firm entered into similar forward contract in ground nut oil for one unit at the rate of Rs. 37/-per 10 kg. and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Thirdly on the same day this firm was also alleged to have entered into a forward contract in ground nut oil at the rate of Rs. 37-90 per 10 kg. 11. It may be stated here they it is not in dispute that at the relevant time forward contracts in ground nut oil were suspended and therefore banned by Forward Markets Commission by issuing a Press Note under the powers vested in them under the Act. 12. In Case No. 163/P of 1973, the same two accused were charged for entering or keeping a place for such illegal activities and in Case No. 159/P of 1973 all of them who were present at the time of raid were charged for having collected or gathered at the said place for the purpose of indulging in such illegal activities. 13. In all these cases the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 13. In all these cases the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The firm and its partner denied that he had entered into any forward contract in ground nut oil or in option in ground nut oil castor seeds as alleged by the prosecution. They also denied that they maintained or kept any place or used this place for the purpose of entering into such illegal activities. The remaining accused in the first mentioned case admitted their presence but each of them stated that stated he had gone to that place for some purpose or the other but not for entering into such illegal contract. 14. The prosecution besides examining P.S.I. Gaonkar, panch Mohamed Hussain and Devendrakumar Gupta, also examined Mangaldas Maviji Shah who scrutinised the documents and came to the conclusion that the aforesaid three books contained entries representing illegal transactions. The evidence of the first three witnesses mentioned above was of formal nature. The important evidence is that of Mangaldas Mavji Shah, the Junior Research Assistant, who claimed to be an expert in this line and stated that on scrutiny he found that the aforesaid two note-books at Exhs. L and N contained a record of illegal transactions. 15. On examination the evidence led by the prosecution, however, the learned Magistrate found that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond any manner of doubt that the entries relied upon by the prosecution from the book marked Ex. N related to option in groundnut oil and castorseeds. Similarly he also found that the evidence did not satisfactorily establish that the entries relied upon by the prosecution form the book marked Exh. L represented forward transactions in groundnut oil. consequently the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused in these two cases. As a corollary to these findings, he also found that it was impossible to hold in the other two cases that the accused maintained or kept or used this place for such illegal activities or that they had gathered there for the purpose of entering into such illegal transactions. In the result, the accused in these four cases were acquitted. 16. This order of acquittal is very vehemently challenged in these appeals by Mrs. Shenoli for the State. 17. In the result, the accused in these four cases were acquitted. 16. This order of acquittal is very vehemently challenged in these appeals by Mrs. Shenoli for the State. 17. It would be convenient first to take up Appeal No. 1066 of 1974 for consideration in which the charge levelled against the accused is under section 20(a) of the Act in as much as the allegation is that the accused had entered into forward transactions in ground-nut oil on 8-4-1972. In this connection the entries which are relied upon are the following three entries from pages 2 and 3 of the Note Book at Exh. L. These two pages contain several entries one after the other, but out of them only three have been selected by the persecution and they are styled as entering relating to forward transactions in groundnut oil. Those entries are as follow : "1 20 3 37-40 --- 1 37-00 2 70 30 37-90" 18. The first two entries are on the left-hand side and the last one is on the right hand side. It is stated that the two entries on the left-hand side represent transaction of forward sale in groundnut oil by this firm to one Maganlal at the rate stated therein and the last entry relates to purchase of groundnut oil by the firm from Maganlal at the rate stated therein. It is alleged that as a matter of fact, there was no actual delivery of the goods nor any delivery was ever intended to be effected but only deference was intended to be paid on the date of settlement which was last date of the month of April 1972. 19. Now, Mangaldas Shah who has scrutinised these entries and has come forward to give evidence that these entries relate to forward transaction in groundnut oil has stated in his evidence that the entry 1-20 is a provisional value of 3 units. According to him, the firm sold groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 37.40 to Maganlal and the same has been shown at page 6 at Entry No. 1 under the account of Maganlal. According to him, these merchants multiply the provisional value 1-20 by 100. The second item which is 3 in this entry refers to the units and the third item denotes the rate at which the bargain is struck. 37.40 to Maganlal and the same has been shown at page 6 at Entry No. 1 under the account of Maganlal. According to him, these merchants multiply the provisional value 1-20 by 100. The second item which is 3 in this entry refers to the units and the third item denotes the rate at which the bargain is struck. According to him, therefore, the second entry denotes that on the same day this firm sold to Mangaldas besides 3 unites one more unit of groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 37.00. Similarly on the same day, according him, the third entry relied upon shows that the firm purchased 3 units of groundnut oil from Mangaldas at the rate of Rs. 37-90. 20. Now, at Exh. M the prosecution has produced the spot rates or ready rates of groundnut oil prevalent and recorded in the office of the Association. Similarly the diary, Exh. D which was seized from the person of accused Bhavanji also gives the spot rates on different dates both in March and April and the rates produced by the prosecution and those recorded in this diary exactly tally. 21. Now, a glance at the spot rates produced, at Exh. M by the prosecution, it would be seen that the spot rate of groundnut oil on 8-4-1972 was Rs. 36-50 per 10 kg. It is therefore, difficult to see how the firm could have purchased 3 units at the rate of Rs. 37-90 per kg. when the spot rate was much less than that. On the face of it there is nothing in these entries to show that they relate to transactions in groundnut oil. The witness has stated that there are eight different types of oil, linseed oil, mustard oil, rapeseed oil, sesamin oil, cotton seed oil and castor seed oil. At the same time he has also admitted that from none of these entries it is clear as to what oil it related and that out of these 8 types of oils, some of them is mentioned in these entries. If that be so, then on the evidence as it stands it is difficult to hold that these entries necessarily relate to groundnut oil and to no other oil. Merely because the witness says that these entries relate to groundnut oil, his word cannot be accepted as ipse dexit. 22. If that be so, then on the evidence as it stands it is difficult to hold that these entries necessarily relate to groundnut oil and to no other oil. Merely because the witness says that these entries relate to groundnut oil, his word cannot be accepted as ipse dexit. 22. Apart from this, although the witness makes a tall claim that he is an expert in this line, it does not appear that he possesses the necessary qualifications which are required to style him as an expert. He joined the forward Markets Commission only as a Upper Division clerk in 1958. From 1960 to 1965 he was not working with the Forward Markets Commission but was on deputation to All India Handicrafts Board as an accountant-cum-store-keeper. After 1965 for one year he again was reposted to Forward Markets Commission as Upper Division clerk but again in 1966 he was sent on deputation to Indian Motion Pictures Export Corporation upto 1970. In 1970 he came again as Upper Division clerk and within about 4 or 5 months he was promoted as Junior Research Assistant. Now, what sort of research work was done by him during the period during which he worked with Forward Markets Commission and what experience he gained is known to the witness himself. He admits that he was doing table work and was transferred to Enforcement Branch only from September 1971. According to him, he had scrutinised accounts in more than 15 cases but he has further amplified his statement by saying that he has only assisted in these cases in interpreting the accounts. It was only in 2 or 3 cases including the present one that he had sent his reports. It is, therefore, hazardous to accept his word as the word of an expert. 23. Besides this, there is not a title of evidence to show that by any stretch of imagination it can be said that these entries relate to forward transactions much less in groundnut oil. 24. Mrs. Shenoi for the State was no doubt right when she urged that since these transactions are carried on in a clandestine manner, the traders would not openly disclosed on the record the nature of the transactions or mention the commodity in the accounts and there are innumerable difficulties in the way of the prosecution in such cases. It may be so. It may be so. However, the difficulties in the way of the prosecution to prove an offence would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty on insufficient evidence. I, therefore, agree with the trial Court that in this case the offence against the accused has not been satisfactory established. 25. I would then turn to Appeal No. 1065 of 1974 wherein the accused have been charged for entering into option transactions in groundnut oil and castor-seeds. Under section 19 of the Act, transactions in the nature of option in goods are, as already stated, rendered illegal and, therefore, entering into such transactions is an offence punishable under section 19 read with section 20 (e) of the Act. 26. In order to prove these transactions the prosecution on three entries from the note-book at Ext. N. This note-book on its several pages contains different entries in pencil. It was seized from the premises in possession of accused No. 1 firm. Two of the three entries are of 10-11-1970 and the third is of 12-11-1971. They are as follows : "I 1 40.30/39.90 Joto Lakhu through Pursho 20/65 II 200 137-7-O R. G." The first one, according to the prosecution, relates to option in ground nut oil and the other two relate to option in caster-seeds. It is stated that the word "Joto" which appears in the first entry means double option, that is wagering both on the rise and fall in the market price. It is stated that this transaction was entered into by one Lakhu through Pursho. The second transaction , as is mentioned therein, is one of Teji and was entered into by one R.G. but who this R.G. is not clear from evidence and it was for 200 units of castor seeds and the rate that was agreed upto was Rs. 137-7-O. Similarly the third transaction is said to be one of Mandi, that is wagering on fall in market entered into by Lakhu through Kishan for 200 units at the rate of Rs. 130-4-O. 27. The evidence of the expert as regards these entries is that the firm Raichand Dungarshi has entered into double option transaction on 10-11-1971, that is the first transaction. 130-4-O. 27. The evidence of the expert as regards these entries is that the firm Raichand Dungarshi has entered into double option transaction on 10-11-1971, that is the first transaction. He further says that although the name of the commodity to which this transaction relates has not been mentioned in the note book, having regard to the spot rate of groundnut oil, this transaction can be connected to groundnut oil. Similarly, according to him, the second and the third items relate to castor-seeds. He has further stated that in such transactions actual delivery of the commodity is not made. However, only the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of materialization is agreed to be paid one party to the other or vice versa. 28. I have already referred to the qualifications of this witness to claim that he is an expert in this line and it is not necessary to repeat the same reasoning here. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that a person enters into a double option transaction, that is Teji Mandi transaction when he is not sure whether the market would rise or fall and, therefore, in order to secure against heavy loss, he wagers on both rise as well as fall in the market price, and when it is a Teji transaction, the person who enters into it expects rise in the price of the commodity by the time of materialisation of the transaction and, therefore, on that day if there is market rise, he stands to gain. Similarly, a person who enters into a Mandi transaction, expects fall in the market price of the commodity and he wagers on that. 29. It is not necessary to go into the details of the nature of these transactions inasmuch as for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to do so. The witness, however, has admitted that there is always a future date when option is to materialise and the following elements are always present in the option transaction, viz. there are two parties, the rate is fixed, the premium which is to be paid to the person accepting the options is also fixed, and the date on which the transaction is to materialise is also stated. there are two parties, the rate is fixed, the premium which is to be paid to the person accepting the options is also fixed, and the date on which the transaction is to materialise is also stated. He however, admits that so far as the first entry is confirmed, the amount of premium is not mentioned therein as well as the date of materialisation is also not shown there. There is also no mention of commodity to which this transaction related. 30. The same is the case with the other two transactions. There is no material except the bare word of the witness to show that the first transaction is in respect of groundnut oil and the other two transactions relate to castorseeds. No doubt, the words Joto, Teji, and Mandi do appear in these respective transactions and therefore there is some ground to suspect that these transactions might be relating to option transactions. However, since all the elements which constitute a transaction of option in goods are admittedly absent in the transactions in question, it is difficult to positively hold that they are necessarily transactions of options in the commodity stated by the witness. That being so, the offence in this case also cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 31. Since the offence in the above two cases has not been established, it follows that it is difficult to hold that this place or premises which were raided were owned or kept or used for the purpose of entering into such illegal transactions or that the persons who were found there had gathered there for the purpose of entering into such illegal transactions. 32. The result, therefore, is that the order of acquittal passed in all these cases will have to be confirmed. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. -----