JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh dated November 26, 1977 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted the accused-respondent Shankarlal of the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') read with Condition No. (3) of the Licence of Rajasthan Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1968 (for short 'the Order'). 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that on November 12, 1974, 20 tins of vegetable oil were being carried on the roof of Bus No. RJY 1874 which was going from Chittorgarh to Arnod. The SHO, Chittorgarh got information that accused Shankerlal was carrying these 20 tins on the roof of the Bus. He therefore, informed Head Constable Incharge of the Police Station, Nimbaheda. The Head Constable Nimbaheda checked the bus and found these 20 tins of vegetable oil lying on the roof of the Bus. When the conductor was asked as to who was the the owner of these tins, he brought accused Shankerlal and said that these tins were being carried in the bus on his account. Six bills and two tickets were recovered from his possession which were seized by memo Ex. P1. The tins were also seized by the police and after usual investigation, the case of the accused was challaned in the learned lower court. 3. After trial, the learned lower court held that these 20 tins of vegetable oil were being carried by accused Shankerlal on the roof of this bus. He was having 6 bills relating to these tins in his possession which were recovered from him. It has, however, held that it has not been proved that he was a dealer of vegetable oil and, therefore, he committed no offence for carrying these tins and so he has been acquitted. It may be pertinent to note here that these tins were being carried to Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh and not to any destination in Rajasthan. 4. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.S. Mehta, learned Counsel for the accused respondent. I have also meticulously gone through the record of the case. 5. It may be pertinent to note here that these tins were being carried to Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh and not to any destination in Rajasthan. 4. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.S. Mehta, learned Counsel for the accused respondent. I have also meticulously gone through the record of the case. 5. I agree with the rinding of the learned lower court that actually accused respondent Shankerlal was carrying these 20 tins of vegetable oil in the bus on his count. He was found in possession of 6 bills. He has purchased these 20 tins of vegetable oil from Kanhaiyalal Sindhi of Chittorgarh, who is a dealer of vegetable oil. PW 8 Kanhaiyalal Sindhi has stated that bills Ex.P 2 to 6 were issued from his shop which bear his signatures A to B. Of course, he has stated that the goods were sold for cash and, therefore, he did not mention the names of the purchasers in the bill. One of the bills mentions the name of Shankerlal but on the other bills, no names have been mentioned. Be that as it may, the entire controversy hinges on the point whether the accused-respondent Shankerlal can be held a dealer of hydro-genated vegetable oil. 6. Section 2(b) of the Order of 1968 defines the term 'dealer', which means a person, a firm, an association of persons or co-operative society engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of hydrogenated vegetable oils. It has come in evidence that the accused respondent Shanker Lal was carrying these 20 tins from Chittorgarh to Neemuch but there is not an iota of evidence that he was engaged in the business of purchase sale or storage for sale of hydrogenated vegetable oil. Neither his records have been seized to show that even earlier he was engaged in purchase, sale or storage for sale of hydrogenated vegetable oil nor any ocular evidence has been produced to show that he was a dealer of hydrogenated vegetable oil. Simply purchasing of twenty tins of hydrogenated vegetable oil at a time does not make the accused respondent Shankerlal the dealer of hydrogenated vegetable oil. A single transaction of purchase cannot make a man "dealer" of that article. Simply purchasing of twenty tins of hydrogenated vegetable oil at a time does not make the accused respondent Shankerlal the dealer of hydrogenated vegetable oil. A single transaction of purchase cannot make a man "dealer" of that article. He may purchase the vegetable oil for the purpose of marriage or any other purposes but that does not mean that he is actually dealing in this commodity. If he is proved to be a dealer of this hydrogenated vegetable oil, a presumption Under Section 10C of the Act arises that he possessed a requisite mens rea to deal with this Article. But when this fact is not proved that he was a dealer then the above presumption will not be available to the prosecution. I, therefore, agree with the learned lower court that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused-respondent Shankerlal was a dealer of hydrogenated vegetable oil and, therefore, in absence of proof, he has rightly been acquitted by the learned lower court. 7. In the result, this appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******