Order Crl.A.276 of 1984 and 297 of 1984 arise out of S.T.C.No.6 of 1984 on the file of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act cases, Thanjavur, while the Crl.A.277 of 1984 aries out of S.T.C. 8 of 1984. 2. On 13th August, 1983, at about 2 p.m. a lorry bearing T.N.C. 9817 was intercepted by Inspector of Police Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Thanjavur, P.W.3 at Thanjavur Trichy Road, near the Checkpost at Pudukudi. One hundred and seven bags of paddy of I.R.20 quality and thirty seven bags of N.L.R. quality were seized under Ex.P.1 by P.W.3. Both Al and A2 were in the lorry. Al was the cleaner and A2 was the occupant in the lorry. The driver of the lorry is stated to have escaped. They are stated to have violated C1.3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1982 and that they have also violated C1.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. They were charged for the violation of the Order. They have made themselves liable for punishment underS.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The appellants in C.A.227 of 1984 were travelling in a car TNG 5666 on the same day at the same time. Their car was also intercepted by P,W.3. The first appellant M. Manoharan was the driver of the car. The other two appellants S. Arumugham and Neelakandan were seated by his side. Three bags were seized from the car, two from the boot of the car, while one bag was seized from the rear side. They contained paddy of I.R. 20 quality. 4. They were also charged for violating C1.3 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1982 and also for having violated C1.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. They have made themselves liable for punishment underS.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In all these cases, no permit to carry paddy was found either with the occupant of the car or with the occupant of the lorry. 5. After obtaining sanction, a charge sheet was laid by P.W.3. They have made themselves liable for punishment underS.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In all these cases, no permit to carry paddy was found either with the occupant of the car or with the occupant of the lorry. 5. After obtaining sanction, a charge sheet was laid by P.W.3. The Special Judge who was the Trial Judge, found them guilty of the offence with which they are charged and convicted and sentenced Al and A2, the appellants in C.A.276 of 1984, to one year rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.1,000 each, while the appellants in C.A.277 of 1984 were also convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.250 each. Aggrieved the appellants have now filed the appeals. 6. Mr. Ganapathi learned counsel for the appellants stated that C1.4(1) of Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 is not attracted as it has not been proved that the appellants have started afresh or that they carry on business as a wholesaler in paddy or rice. Of course, this contention is well founded for there is no evidence of the appellants doing business nor their carrying on business as a wholesaler. That apart, a perusal of the sanction order shows that prosecution was sanctioned for contravention of C1.4(1) of Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of trade) Order, 1974 and C1.3(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Paddy (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1982, for purchase of the paddy in Thanjavur Dt., without a valid licence. Obviously, the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to C1.4 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. If only had he looked into, he would have found that Cl.4 refers to the licensing of wholesaler and refers to starting afresh or carrying on business as a wholesaler in paddy or rice. That sanction order is therefore bad. 7. His next contention is that prosecution has not proved that C1.3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1982 has been violated. That sanction order is therefore bad. 7. His next contention is that prosecution has not proved that C1.3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1982 has been violated. C1.3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1974 runs thus: “No person shall, transport move or otherwise carry or prepare of attempt to transport move or otherwise carry or aid or abet in the transport movement or otherwise carrying of paddy outside the places notified under C1.3 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 by real read bail or otherwise. The learned counsel pointed out that there is no proof as to what is the notified area. The prosecution ought to have filed the order notifying the area. 8. The notification in question is not one which a court can judicial notice of, for, this notification is one, which is executive in character. Even a Gazette notification has to be properly filed and proved. In the absence of such notification before the court and in the absence of such notification notifying the area, the appellant cannot be found guilty of violating C1.3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy (Restriction on movement) Order, 1982. The proper course to be adopted under such circumstances is to set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant and to remit the matter for a de novo trial. 9. The appeals are allowed. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the matter is remitted for de nove trial. As these are old cases, the Special Judge will expedite the trial. B.S. ----- Appeals allowed.