JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioner was convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 on the allegation that there was violation of Clause 10 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966. The trying Magistrate sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5001- or in default, directed further rigorous imprisonment for three weeks more. He also directed confiscation of the seized baby food. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentenced but vacated the direction for confiscation of Lactodex and Lactogen. 2. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner raises several contentions in support of the revision application, but it is unnecessary to deal with all of them, as in my opinion, the application has to succeed on a preliminary ground. Orissa Baby Food Licencing Order, 1966 came into force in August, 1966. 'Baby food' has been defined in Clause 2(i) to mean 'a food as specified in Schedule 1'. Schedule I originally contained 7 Items being (1) Amul milk food for babies, (2) Cenac baby food, (3) Glaxo, (4) Horlicks, (5) Lactogen, (6) Lactodex and (7) Oster milk. In the instant case, the prosecution is for Amul Spray. Amul Spray as such was not included in Schedule 1. In February, 1972, there was an amendment to the schedule and in place of the first item, Amul alone was substituted and as Hem No. 8 Amul Spray was added. As has been held by this Court in the case at Santikumar v. State ILR 1975 Cutt. 86 the amendment of February, 1972, had not been notified and as such, the amendment did nut become part of the statute. The relevant portion from the reported judgment may be extracted: The sole question for consideration on this aspect of the matter is whether without publication of this notification in the official Gazette Amul Spray shall be included as an item of baby food in the Order. A bare reference to Clause 14 of the Order would indicate that the State Government by an order notified in the official Gazette can add to Schedule I any other baby food and it is only on the publication of the Government order by notification in the official Gazette that Schedule I shall be deemed to be amended. A bare reference to Clause 14 of the Order would indicate that the State Government by an order notified in the official Gazette can add to Schedule I any other baby food and it is only on the publication of the Government order by notification in the official Gazette that Schedule I shall be deemed to be amended. Until publication of the Government Order is made in the official Gazette, Schedule I shall not be taken to have been amended. The result, therefore, is factually Government supported to amend Schedule I by including Amul Spray as an item of baby food. This amendment was given publicity by a press note issued by the Joint Director of Food, Supplies in the official Gazette, but the law prescribed in Clause 14 of the Order to make the amendment valid was not given effect to. Result is that Amul Spray cannot be taken tu have been included as an item of baby food in Schedule 1. There is no legal amendment of the schedule. Consequently even if the Petitioner were the licensee and in fact be contravened the Condition 4 of the Licence, he cannot be said to have committed an offence. What has been said on that occasion welt applies to the present facts and prosecution has not indicated that subsequently the amendment of February, 1972, had been duly published in the official gazette and that position on the basis of which the judgment of acquittal had been recorded in the reported decision had changed by the time the offence in question is alleged to hare been committed. It must, therefore follow that Amul Spray is not an item of baby food and possession thereof in the manner proved in the instant case, would not amount to breach of the law giving rise to the liability under the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The revision application accordingly succeeds, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the relevant Orissa Order is vacated and he is acquitted. The sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded. Final Result : Allowed