JUDGMENT 1. - The State has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated December 21, 1979 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, allowing the appeal preferred before him by the two non-petitioners against the order of the Collector dated October 10, 1979, confiscating 594 tins of mustard oil under section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). M/s G.C. Oil Mills, Viswa Karma Industrial Area, Road No. 12, Jaipur, was granted a licence under the Rajasthan Edible Oil & Oil Seeds Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 (for short, the Order), made under section 3 of the Act. Prakash Narayap Mathur, Enforcement Inspector accompanies by Shri Pratap Singh, Enforcement Inspector inspected the premises of M/s G.C. Oil Mills on December 27, 1977 and found that 574 tins of mustard oil were despatched to Jorhat (Assam) through R.R. No. 191489 and R.R.No. 191490, but this consignment was not shown in the stock register, nor any bill was found to have issued in respect of this consignment. The source from which the oil tins were purchased was not disclosed in the stock register nor the bill received from that source was made available for inspection. On having come to know about this contravention of the terms of the licence the consignment was seized in transit on January 9, 1978 at Railway Station Bandikui. An application under section 6 of the Act was presented before the Collector, Distric Jaipur, for necessary action. The Collector gave notice to M/s. G.C. Oil Mills and its partner Shri Bhag Chand to show cause as to why the said quantity be not confiscated for the breach of conditions No. 3(1) and 3(8) of the licence issued under the Order. No reply to the said notice was filed by the non-petitioners, but it was expressed on its behalf by Shri Bhag Chand, Partner that the reply filed by Rajendra Trading Co. may be construed to be its reply. As per that reply the consignment of 574 tins of mustard oil had been despatched to M/s Padma Ram Om Prakash of Jorhat for sale in Adhat. A letter to this effect was also sent to the said firm. The endorsement on the favour of M/s Rajendra Trading Co. had been made, as it had received a sum of Rs. As per that reply the consignment of 574 tins of mustard oil had been despatched to M/s Padma Ram Om Prakash of Jorhat for sale in Adhat. A letter to this effect was also sent to the said firm. The endorsement on the favour of M/s Rajendra Trading Co. had been made, as it had received a sum of Rs. 10,5030/- as against the price of the goods covered by the consignment from M/s Rajendra Trading Co. So far as nonentry in the account books is concerned, in the reply it has been stated that under the licence a dealer in edible oils could complete the daily account before the start of his business next day and the reason for not issuing any bill for the said consignment was that the consignment was not a sale and it was sent for being sold and the property in goods had not passed in the purchaser. The learned Collector, Jaipur confiscated all the 594 tins of mustard oil and an appeal was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated December 21,1977 has held that the transaction does not appear to be a sale to M/s Padma Ram Omprakash and the goods covered by the two R.Rs. were sent to M/s Rajendra Trading Co. for being sold in Adhat on behalf of the non-petitioners. He further held that the endorsement can in no way be a sale to M/s Rajendra Trading Co. He, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation passed by the learned Collector. 3. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. The non-petitioners are said to have contravened the conditions Nos. 3(1) and (8) of the licence Ex. P/15 issued under the Order which is available on record of the trial court. Condition No. 3 (1) requires that the licensee shall keep in form Gha a register showing therein the stock in the beginning of the day, position of the stock on that day and the source from where received. The register shall also show details of the sale of the stock of edible oil as also the last stock of every day. Condition No. 3(iii) requires that the licensee recording the entry for the next day shall enter the stock position at the end of the previous day. The register shall also show details of the sale of the stock of edible oil as also the last stock of every day. Condition No. 3(iii) requires that the licensee recording the entry for the next day shall enter the stock position at the end of the previous day. Condition No. 8 of the licence requires to issue to the consignee a bill mentioning therein the licence number, the name of the purchaser, his address, date and details of the edible oil sold etc. Therefore, so far as the condition No. 8 of the licence is concerned its compliance is necessary in case the sale is made. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City has also placed reliance on two documents Ex. D/5 and D/6 on which the learned Collector has not placed any value because they do not bear any serial number and such letters could be prepared at any time. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the above referred two letters could not be discarded easily more so when they have been enclosed with the R.Rs. and it goes to show that they did come into existence on December 27, 1977. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further observed that it is difficult to suspect their genuineness. On the material on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the consignment of two R.Rs. was for being sold on Adhat to Rajeadra Trading Co. and as such the transaction was not of a sale. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse and such a view could have been taken on the material on record. 4. Consequently, I find no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******