K.S. LODHA, J.—The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 26.11.84 by which he set aside the order of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu, accepting the final report submitted by the police against the petitioner in respect of the offence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stocks & Prohibition of Export) Order, 1979 (hereinafter called the Order of 1979). 2. The Enforcement Officer, Churu, filed a report before the Kotwali Police Station, Churu on 6.8.83 alleging that the firm M/s. Radha Madhav Gum Factory through its partners Narayan Prasad and others had exported 6, 800 bags of gowar churi out of Rajasthan in between 27.10.79 to 21.11.79 in contravention of the Order of 1979. The police after investigations, filed a final report on the ground that there was no prohibition against the export of Gowar churi and it was only with regard to gowar in its whole form, that the export was prohibited. The learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu, by his order dt. 3.12.83 accepted the final report. The learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was of the opinion that the Order of 1979 only prohibited export of gowar and did not prohibit the export of its derivatives or products and gowar churi could not be deemed to be gowar within the meaning of Order, 1979. Dis-satisfied with this, the State of Rajasthan filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Churu, was of the opinion that the term gowar in the Order of 1979 included gowar products and gowar churi was also thus within the purview of the Order of 1979, the export thereof was thus in contravention of the Order of 1979. He, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate and sent the matter back to him to proceed further in accordance with law. The accused firm through its partners has, therefore, come up to this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record. 4. Having heard them, I am clearly of the opinion that the interpretation put by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate on the Order of 1979 was correct and that put forward by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be accepted. 5. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record. 4. Having heard them, I am clearly of the opinion that the interpretation put by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate on the Order of 1979 was correct and that put forward by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be accepted. 5. There is no dispute before me that in the schedule under the Order of 1979 item no. 6 only mentions gowar. The question is whether gowar churi can be deemed to be included in gowar and its export must be deemed to be prohibited under the Order of 1979. The Order of 1979 was promulgated for maintaining and securing supply of fodder at fair price and for control of movement of fodder within and outside the State. The cattle fodder has been defined u/s 2 (a) which reads "in this order, unless the context otherwise requires cattle fodder means cattle fodder as mentioned in the Schedule." The Schedule has nine items and at item No .2 is gowar. Now when the notification only uses the term gowar in the Schedule, it must be only meaning gowar in its whole form or the whole grain and it cannot be taken to include its products or derivatives. In the notification itself wherever it was intended to include the products of any grain, it has been specifically mentioned e.g. at item no.4, it mentions moth, moth chara and moth churi A reference to the other orders passed in this respect from time to time would also bear out this interpretation. In 1968 on 13.9.68, the cattle fodder (Sale of Stocks and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1968 was promulgated. Clause 2 (a) of that Order defines cattle fodder in the same terms as the Order of 1979 and in the Schedule at item no. 6 gowar has been mentioned. Later this Order was amended on 13.10.68 and in the amended Schedule at item no. 11 gowar and its products were included in place of only gowar, which was at item no. 6 of the original order. This will go to show that if the gowar and its products or derivatives were deemed to be included in the term gowar, then there was no necessity of this amendment. 6. 11 gowar and its products were included in place of only gowar, which was at item no. 6 of the original order. This will go to show that if the gowar and its products or derivatives were deemed to be included in the term gowar, then there was no necessity of this amendment. 6. Then I may refer to the Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stocks and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1969. In this gowar and its products were included in the Schedule but later in the Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stocks and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1975 only gowar was in the Schedule and not its products. So also was the position in the Order of 1979. Thereafter again in the Orders of 1980, 1981 and 1983 gowar including all its derivatives but excluding gowar gum, Which is not fodder, was mentioned. 7. It would thus be clear that whenever it was intended to include only the whole grain of gowar in the Schedule, only the term gowar was used but When it was intended to include the derivatives or products of gowar also in the term cattle fodder, it was specifically mentioned in the Schedule. Not only this, with regard to the other items of cattle fodder also whenever the products Of the grain were sought to be included in the term cattle fodder, they were specially mentioned, along with the whole grain e.g. in the Order of 1980 at item no. 4, moth, moth chara and moth churi have been mentioned. So also in the Order of 1981, Thus there is no escape from the conclusion that in the Order of 1979 only gowar as a whole grain was intended to be a cattle fodder at item no. 2 to the Schedule and its products or derivatives were not intended to be included in the term cattle fodder. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, observed that in the various Orders when gowar churi or the derivatives were mentioned in the Schedule, they were only by way of illucidation, of the term gowar and according to him, when the export of gowar itself was prohibited it could not be envisaged that the products or derivatives of gowar would be suffered to be exported. I am unable to agree with him. I am unable to agree with him. If the products or derivatives of gowar were mentioned in some of the Orders referred to above only by way of illucidation it could not be accepted that at one time, the authorities concerned would have illucidated the term gowar by mentioning the gowar products and its derivatives in the Schedule and at other times, they would have rest contended by only mentioning the term gowar. In this respect, the amendment in the Order of 1968 is of great significance because if gowar was intended to include its products or derivatives as had later been done, the amendment would not have been in this form. Not only this, in the years 1975 and 1979 only the term gowar would not have been used and then again in 1980, 1981 and 1983 gowar including all its derivatives would not have been used. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable that in the Order of 1979, the export of gowar churi was not prohibited as gowar churi was not included in cattle fodder and the export thereof by the petitioner-firm therefore, could not be taken to be in contravention of the aforesaid Order, 1979. The learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was, therefore, right in accepting the final report and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside that order and remanding the matter. 8. I, therefore, accept this revision and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. The order of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate is restored.