Immediately after hearing learned counsel of both the parties, order was passed in open court on 12.11.82, acquitting the accused announcing that reasoned judgment would follow. I now give reasons for the judgment. 2. The question which arises for consideration is whether the accused violated clause 16 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961, as amended up-to-date (hereinafter called 'the Order'), and punishable as such under section 7(1) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barpeta, before whom the petitioner was prosecuted, held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo another 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The seized 81 bags of rice weighing 76.95 quintals were ordered also to be confiscated. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati, OH appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 23 (K-3)/76, confirmed the convic­tion with modification of sentence. The appellate court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 3 months. The order of confiscation of the seized rice was, however, maintained. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court against the conviction and sentence aforementioned. 3. The prosecution case may be stated in a nutshell. The petitioner, Moamohan Das, was a rice wholesale licensee of Barpeta Town under the said Order. On 4.10.73 Montnohan Das lifted 81 bag? of rice weighing 76.95 quintals from the Food Corporation of India Depot at Tihu for transportation to Barpeta Town by truck No. ASZ 9111. The movement permit for rice was from Tihu to Barpeta Town. But instead of bringing the rice to Barpeta Town, he caused movement of the said rice loaded in that truck to Barpeta Town Road. The truck carrying the rice was detected at Barpeta Road Town by Mahananda Das, Sub-Inspector of Supply (Enforcement) on 4.10.73. As the driver of the truck could mot produce any permit from authority for movement or transporta­tion of rice from Tihu to Barpeta Road Town, Sri Mahananda Das and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Barpeta who was also present at that time at Barpeta Road o/p. directed the driver to proceed to Barpeta Town, where the accused had godown to unload the rice. As directed, the driver drove the truck carrying the rice to Barpeta Town. As directed, the driver drove the truck carrying the rice to Barpeta Town. As no godown was found at Barpeta town, the truck was detained at Barpeta police station, and thereafter the rice was seized under seizure list, EU.3, dated 10.10.73, Subse­quently, the seized rice was sold in public auction. With the sanction from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Barpeta, the Sub-Inspector of Supply, submitted an offence report, Ext. I for prose­cution of the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for violation of clause 16 of the said Order. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 7(i) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 16 (i) of the said Order is in the following terms ; "Subject to notification and restrictions, if any, under clause 17 below no person shall except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf, move or transport or cause to be moved or transported to any other areas within the State of Assam by land, water or air any foodgrains out of any of the areas specified below, namely : (1) * (2) * * (3) * * (4) * * (5) Part of Gauhati Sub-division at the North Bank of the Brahmaputra, Nalbari Sub-division and Barpeta Sub-division". 4. It is a common ground that Barpeta town and Barpeta Roadi town are within the Barpeta Sub-division. It is also not disputed that Barpeta Road town is almost opposite to Barpeta town from Hawli which is within the Barpeta Sub-division. It is, therefore, evident that there was no movement of rice out of Barpeta Sub-Division to any area within the State of Assam within the meaning of clause 16 of the said Order. 5. A reading of clause 16 extracted above makes it abun­dantly clear that what it prohibited is the movement of any foodgrain by land, water or air out of the area specified therein, namely, Barpeta Sub-division, in the present case, to any other areas within the State of Assam except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf. But there is no restriction or prohibition of movement of any foodgrain within the Barpeta Sub-Division. But there is no restriction or prohibition of movement of any foodgrain within the Barpeta Sub-Division. On the face of the language of clause 16 which is clear and free from any ambiguity, movement of rice in question towards Barpeta Road town, a place not covered by road permit, cannot attract clause 16, since Barpeta town and Barpeta Road town are within the same Barpeta Sub-division. On the facts found, their was no attempt on the part of the driver or the accused to commit the offence. At the most, it might be a preparation on the part of the accused to trans­port rice to any place outside Barpeta town, but even then such an act cannot attract clause 16. 6. The case is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 713 . In that case, para 2 (a) of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959, promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prohibited export of any paddy out of any place within the State of Punjab to any place outside the State. A truck carrying 75 bags of paddy weighing about 140 maunds was stopped at Samalkha Barrier, which is 14 miles from Delhi-Punjab boundary. It was held that the accused could not be convicted under section 7 of the Act, as there was no contra­vention of the Order, because the truck loaded with paddy was seized at Samalkha Barrier, which was well within the boundary of the Punjab and there was no export of paddy within the meaning of para 2 (a) of the Order. It was further held that there was merely a preparation on the part of the accused to commit offence of export; and it was quite possible that the accused might have been warned that they had no licence to carry paddy and they might have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and Delhi-Punjab boundary and not proceeded further in their journey. It was pointed out : “But there is no provision in the Act which makes the pre­paration to commit the offence punishable. It follows therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act". 7. It was pointed out : “But there is no provision in the Act which makes the pre­paration to commit the offence punishable. It follows therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act". 7. In the instant case, the truck driver drove the truck to Barpeta town, as detected by Sri Mahananda Das, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), when it was pointed out to him that road permit was for Barpeta town and not for Barpeta Road Town. In the examination of the accused under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that for some other purposes, the truck was taken to Barpeta Road Town. On the facts found, the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively that the accused committed an act in contravention of clause 16 of the said Order. It is also settled law that mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence under section 7 of the Act. (See Nathulal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 .) There is no iota of evidence in this case that the accused acted with a guilty mind. For the reasons stated above, the accused cannot be held guilty for offence under section 7 of the Act. There was no contravention of clause 16 of the said Order. 8. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The conviction of the accused is set aside, and the accused is acquitted. Sale proceeds of the seized rice shall be given to the accused-petitioner forthwith and fine of 1,000/-, if realised, shall be refunded to the accused. Rule is made absolute.