JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-5-77 by Sri S.R. Maheshwari, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in case no. 1594 of 1976, who acquitted respondents of the charges under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. This appeal arose under following circumstances. 2. It appears that on 29th of September, 1974 at about 3-45 A.M. appellants were found carrying wheat loads in Government Roadways Bus no. USE 5946 without any permit or authority when they were intercepted near Kosi Bridge Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur. Loads of wheat each weighed variously as detailed in recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 dated 29-9-74 drawn by Sri V. P. Singh, S. O. in presence of constables and Imdad Ali (PW 1) examined by learned trial Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and framed charge against respondents under section 3/7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1975 read with section 6 of U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control Movement) Order, 1974. While evidence was being recorded, statements of accused were abruptly recorded, they denied the allegations of movement of wheat. Learned trial Magistrate relied upon Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 CrLJ 751 in which facts were as below: "The truck carrying 75 bags of paddy weighing 140 maunds was stopped by the Sub-Inspector of Food and Supplies Department at Samalkha Barrier which is 32 miles from Delhi. Delhi Punjab boundary was at the relevant point of time at about the 18th mile from Delhi. The truck as also the bags were taken into possession by the Sub-Inspector and accused persons were prosecuted for contravention of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order. It was alleged by the prosecution that the consignment of paddy was booked from Malerkotla to Delhi. In the trial, the driver one of the accused, admitted, that he was given the paddy for being transported to Delhi. Held, that the accused persons could not be; convicted under section 7 as there was no contravention of the Order. The truck loaded with paddy being seized at Samalkha well inside the Punjab boundary there was no "export of paddy," within the meaning of para 2 (a) of the Order. There was merely a preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence off export. The truck loaded with paddy being seized at Samalkha well inside the Punjab boundary there was no "export of paddy," within the meaning of para 2 (a) of the Order. There was merely a preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence off export. It was quite possible that the accused might have been warned that they had no licence to carry the paddy and they might have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey." 3. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid authority, the respondents were acquitted. 4. State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. I have heard Sri K. N. Dwivedi for State and Sri P. N. Misra and Sri Virendra Singh for respondents. 5. It was extrenuously argued before me on behalf of State that learned trial Magistrate should have recorded entire evidence before recording order of acquittal. The case should be remanded to the court below for decision afresh after setting aside acquittal order. 6. On behalf of respondents it was argued that incident took place on 29-9-74; acquittal order was recorded on 12-5-77. There was no occasion for any remand now, as there was no evidence to show that respondents had contravened the provisions of U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products Order, 1974 as amended subsequently in 1975. At the very outset I would like to observe that procedure adopted by learned Magistrate is deprecable. When the trial had commenced and prosecution evidence was available and prosecution was not guilty of any latches etc. he must not have abruptly stopped recording of evidence and should not have been quick in examining the respondents and delivering judgment. 7. However, it is to be seen as to whether there is cogent evidence on record to sustain conviction of the respondents under section 6 of U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1974 as amended up-to-date, read with section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1975. Section 6 of the aforesaid Order reads as below: "6. Section 6 of the aforesaid Order reads as below: "6. (a) No person shall move (a) wheat or wheat products to any place within the border area except on a permit granted by the Controller and on a "No Objection Certificate" of the District Magistrate of the border area concerned; or (ii) wheat from one block to another block; or (iii) wheat from one block from any place situate outside a block within the State; or (iv) Wheat from one district to another within the same block or from any block to any place outside a block, within the State except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Controller." 8. Learned counsel for State pointed out that under section 6 (1) (i) any movement of wheat within border area was not permissible without a permit granted by Controller and 'No Objection Certificate' of the District Magistrate of the border area concerned. He also relied upon sub-clause (iv) by which movement of wheat from one district to another district within the same block or from any block to any place outside block within the State except under and in accordance with permit granted by the Controller was prohibited. Schedule 1 appended to the aforesaid order shows that Pilibhit, Rampur, Shahjahanpur, Bareilly, Moradabad and Bijnor fell in one block. Section 2 defines 'Block' and 'Border Area' as given below: "2. Definitions. In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) "Block" means a block comprising the District or districts as specified in the schedule appended to this order ; (aa)"Border Area" means the area within an eight kilometre belt inside the State all along its border and includes- (i) the entire area between the border of the State and the river Hindan in Districts Meerut and Bulandshar ; (ii) the entire area between the border of the State and the river Jamuna in district Mathura; (iii) the entire area between the border of the State and the river Ganges in District Varanasi and Ghazipur ; and (iv) the entire area between the border of the State and river Rapti in district Bahraicb, Gonda and Basti." 9. Learned counsel for State did not cite any authority to show that Milkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, CrLJ 1975 SC 751 does not rule the day now. 10. Learned counsel for State did not cite any authority to show that Milkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, CrLJ 1975 SC 751 does not rule the day now. 10. It appears that interception of the Bus was within Rampur district; it had not entered the boundary of Moradabad district or border area which was many miles away from the place of interception. Learned counsel for State also relied upon section 8 of Essential Commodities Act which reads as below: "8. Attempts and abetment.-Any person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention of, any order made under section 3 shall be deemed to have contravened that order." His contention was that every attempt of contravention was punishable under section 3 of the aforesaid Act. 11. A careful perusal of the facts as laid in Milkiat Singh (supra) shall go to disclose that although Delhi border for which paddy was booked from Malerkotla was at a distance of 14 miles from the place; of seizure of the bags and so it was held that act committed by the appellants in that case was merely preparation on the part of the accused to commit an offence of export. It did not amount to attempt, as it was quite possible that they might have been warned about absence of licence to carry paddy and might have changed their minds at any place in between Samolkha Barrier (place of interception) and Delhi-Punjab Boundary. So, the reasoning of learned trial Magistrate that the act did not transcend the domain of preparation cannot be regarded as incorrect. 12. In order to see the evidence which has been shut out by learned trial Magistrate, I carefully perused the police report submitted under section 173 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have a per hole glumpse which if adduced would have varied the decision in any manner or not ? No document except recovery memo is on record to show that prosecution could have relied on any other documentary evidence. List of prosecution witnesses simply shows that all witnesses which were to be examined in the case were of district Rampur except Conductor and Driver and members of police force. No document except recovery memo is on record to show that prosecution could have relied on any other documentary evidence. List of prosecution witnesses simply shows that all witnesses which were to be examined in the case were of district Rampur except Conductor and Driver and members of police force. It appears that respondents included driver of the bus and other employees of UP Government Roadways and under such circumstances it is not possible to think that prosecution was in a position to have adduced cogent evidence to bring home the aforesaid charge to the respondents. When there is little prospect of any conviction in the case even after adduction of the remaining evidence under the aforesaid circumstances, there is absolutely no use to remand the case now for decision afresh and unreasonably prolong the proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and impugned order is affirmed. 13. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.