JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Jugde, Sikar dated 8th October, 1976. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, on 24th December, 1974, convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Briefly stated the facts which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 19th July, 1973, the District Supply Officer, Sikar took search of his house and found 10 quintals of wheat. The contention of the prosecution is that according to the Rajasthan wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, the accused petitioner could keep upto the maximum limit of 5 quintals of wheat only, but as he was found to be in possession of 10 quintals of wheat, he is guilty of the violation of the said order and as such he was prosecuted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that consumer, dealer and purchaser have been defined in the said order as under:- (d "Consumer" means a person who purchases wheat for the purpose of consumption by himself and his family or for the purpose of his business of selling or supplying cooked food-stuffs. (c) "Dealer" means a person, a firm, an association or a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for the sale of Wheat in quantity exceeding one quintal on any one day and includes a commission agent. (j) "Producer" means a person who holds or is in possession of agricultural land under any tenure or in any capacity and on which he raises or has raised a wheat crop or a mixed crop of wheat mixed with other foodgrains. 4. A reference was also made to Clause 15 (2) of the said Order which provides that no purchaser shall hold stocks of wheat in quantity exceeding 20 quintals at any time after 31st May of each year unless the said time limit is, by a general or special order, extended by the State Government. 5. 4. A reference was also made to Clause 15 (2) of the said Order which provides that no purchaser shall hold stocks of wheat in quantity exceeding 20 quintals at any time after 31st May of each year unless the said time limit is, by a general or special order, extended by the State Government. 5. It was further contended that in the said Order of 1973 it has not been specified that 20 quintals of wheat which the producer can keep with him should be his own produce. An argument has been raised that if the producer has 3-4 quintals of his own produce, where is the restriction that he cannot keep wheat upto the extent of 20 quintals even after making a purchase from the open market. Though, this argument goes against the very spirit of the order, because, in its ultimate analysis it may tend to increase the hoarding tendency of an individual, yet it is exceedingly difficult to rule out that the interpretation from the wordings of the present order especially with reference to clause 15 (2) of the said Order of 1973. A penal clause has always to be interpreted strictly and if any doubt arises the benefit must go to the accused-petitioner. In the present case, there is finding of fact by both the lower Courts that Baldeo, the brother of the present accused-petitioner, was working in Sijara with Madan Lal, and that he received 3 quintals of wheat as his share in' which the accused-petitioner was also entitled to participate as a co-sharer being in possession of the land in which the crop was sown. Under these circumstances, the accused-petitioner comes within the definition of producer. A producer is entitled to keep upto 20 quintals of wheat. An argument has been advanced that a producer may require wheat for seeds, for his cattle and for so many other reasons. A court of revision will not enquire into this aspect of the case. Anyhow, it is apparent that there is a lacuna in the order and the accused-petitioner is entitled to take the advantage of that lacuna. In these circumstances, the accused-petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 6. For the reasons stated above the revision petition is allowed, The conviction and the sentence of the accused-petitioner are set aside. The bail bonds filed by the accused-petitioners are hereby discharged. In these circumstances, the accused-petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 6. For the reasons stated above the revision petition is allowed, The conviction and the sentence of the accused-petitioner are set aside. The bail bonds filed by the accused-petitioners are hereby discharged. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded. The sale-proceeds of the wheat shall be returned to the accused-petitioner,Petition allowed. *******