ORDER K L Shrivastava, J 1. This revision petition is directed against the revisional order passed on 7-9-83 by the Sessions Judge Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1983 whereby the petitioner's conviction and sentence by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (C.J.M.) Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 788 of 1982 have been confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition are these. The petitioner is a shopkeeper in village Panwadi, District Shajapur and is not a dealer within the meaning of Clause 2 (a) of the M. P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel oil (Licencing Control) order 1980 (for short 'the order'). 3. On 9-7-82 B. S. Rana (P. W. 3.), the Food Inspector seized 220 litres of diesel from the shop of the applicant. 4 In due course, the petitioner was prosecuted and was convicted by the learned Magistrate under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (for short 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 5. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge Shajapur which was dismissed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. It may be pointed out that the State Government being of opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so far maintaining supply and for securing availability at fair price of motor spirit and high speed diesel oil in the State, in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Act made the said order. In Clause 2 (c) of the Order it is provided that unless the context otherwise requires 'oil' means any of the oil specified below:- "(i) Motor Spirit or (ii) High Speed Diesel oil". Clause 3 of the order is regarding regulation of sale and supply of motor spirit and high speed diesel oil. In sub-clause 7 thereof, it is laid down as under:- No person other than a dealer or an oil Company shall sell oil to a user and a user shall not draw his requirement of oil except from a dealer or an oil company. 8. In sub-clause 7 thereof, it is laid down as under:- No person other than a dealer or an oil Company shall sell oil to a user and a user shall not draw his requirement of oil except from a dealer or an oil company. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence to show that the articles seized from the petitioner was high speed diesel oil and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of contravention of the order made punishable under section 3/7 of the Act. He has invited my attention to the fact that the sample of the seized article was submitted for analysis but the report has not been placed on record. He further contended that writing in the seizure memo. that the petitioner admits that he sells diesel is not substantive evidence and cannot furnish basis for conviction. According to him in the absence of the evidence regarding sale of the high speed diesel oil, the petitioner does not come under the clutches of the aforesaid penal provision. 9. Learned counsel for the State contends that during investigation, the accused expressly admitted that he had been selling diesel on higher rate. However, as rightly contended by the petitioner, this does not constitute substantive evidence for a finding on the point of sale by the petitioner. 10. From the foregoing discussion, the conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was in possession of high speed diesel oil or that he had been selling it. Therefore, it has to be held that the learned appellate Court was wrong in maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner's conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence of which he was convicted. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him after verification. The petitioner's bail bonds shall stand discharged.