JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The applicant is being prosecuted for violation of Rule 9 of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9th July, 1975 Kanhaiya Lal Azad, Supply Inspector went to the shop of the applicant. He found that six copies by name Jain Bhugol Abhyas Pustika were sold to one Balak Ram, but no receipt had been issued for the same. The price of these six copies, according to the applicant, as sworn in para 4 of the uncontroverted affidavit filed on this behalf, is Rs. 4.50 only. The statement of Balak Ram was taken on the spot. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit it is averred that Balak Ram had stated that he neither paid the price of these copies, nor demanded any receipt. 4. learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that under Rule 7(3) of the aforesaid control order it is not necessary to issue a receipt or invoice unless demanded in case the total amount charged from a purchaser does not exceed Rs. 5/- in respect of any one scheduled commodity. 5. Counsel for the State was granted three weeks time on 23-1-1976 for filing a counter affidavit. No counter-affidavit was filed. On 10th March, 1976 two weeks and no more were again granted by this Court to the State for filing the counter affidavit. Yet no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. When this application came up for hearing on 22nd September, 1976 before me, I again gave an opportunity to the State for filing documents including the statements of Balak Ram and Bhadra Kumar Jain. Even till today these documents have not been filed nor has any counter-affidavit been filed. The State counsel again prays for further time. In my view sufficient indulgence has been granted to the State on three earlier occasions. No further time can be granted to the State counsel for filing the requisite documents, which have not been filed due to the negligence on behalf of the State. In these circumstances, I have to accept the averments made in the affidavit filed along with this application. 6. No further time can be granted to the State counsel for filing the requisite documents, which have not been filed due to the negligence on behalf of the State. In these circumstances, I have to accept the averments made in the affidavit filed along with this application. 6. Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975 runs as follows : Notwithstanding anything in sub clause (1) it shall not be necessary to issue a receipt or invoice, unless demanded, in case the total amount charged from a purchaser does not exceed Rs. 5/- in respect of one scheduled commodity and Rs. 10/- in the aggregate for two or more scheduled commodities. It is obvious from a mere perusal of this rule that since six copies which had been sold to Balak Ram costed Rs. 4/50 only the applicant was not in law bound to give its receipt, more so, when it was not demanded from him by the purchaser. In these circumstances, no case whatsoever, has been made out against the applicant, even on a perusal of the admitted facts placed before me. 7. For the reasons given above, this application is allowed and the entire proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in the case State v. Bhadra Kumar Jain under Rule 9 of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order 1975, are hereby quashed.