JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is directed against the order dated 20. 7. 82 passed by Sri S. R. Banerjee, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court at Barrackpore, 24-Parganas in G. R. E. No. 270 of 1979 whereby charge was framed under Sec. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Acts for violation of paragraph 3 of West Bengal Rice and paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1977. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid charge framing order dated 2 0. 7. 82, the petitioner-accused Sri' ajit Kumar Saha has moved this Court of revision for having his grievance redressed. 2. THE facts of the" case, insofar that is material for the purpose of this Court, are that Sri Saha did procure a permit for carriage 120 quintals of rice by a certain truck. The truck exhibited some mechanical defects on its way' to the destination station. The permit that was issued was valid up to 23. 6. 79 whereas due to the mechanical defects the lorry reached the destination station two days later, i. e., on 2 5. 6. 79. The Inspector guarding the check-post on 25. 6. 79, i. e., on 25. 6. 79 arrested the accused and thereafter the case was lodged against him resulting in the framing of the charge by the local Magistrate under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act, as indicated before. Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri Saha, has invited my attention to the principle of law laid down so beautifully in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of maharashtra, reported in AIR 1972 SC 545 . In that case the learned Chief presidency Magistrate, Bombay framed charge against the accused under sec, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, found that materials on the record were not sufficient for framing of the charge and therefore he discharged the accused. The State moved the High Court of Bombay. The High Court reversed that order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Thereafter the accused moved the Supreme Court on appeal. The State moved the High Court of Bombay. The High Court reversed that order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Thereafter the accused moved the Supreme Court on appeal. The Supreme court found that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was right in discharging the accused for want of sufficient materials on the record and in doing so laid down principles of law which stands as follows : "the order framing the charge does substantially affect the person's liberty and it cannot be said that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the materials on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. " 3. RELYING upon the aforesaid principle of law as laid down by the supreme Court Mr. Basu has contended that in the instant case also the materials on the record amply suggest that the Learned Magistrate did not at all apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Basu is right in his. submission; for it would transpire from, the order-sheets of the case-record that there is nothing to show that the learned magistrate did consider any material whatsoever before, him at the time of framing the Charge. All that the learned Magistrate says is this : " accused on bail is present. Heard. Prima facie charge under Section 7 (I) (a) (ii)of Act X of 1955 framed. Read over and explained. Accused pleads not guilty. To 30. 11. 82 for evidence Summon. Call for almat". Mr. Basu has taken me through the orders as unfolded in the order-sheets. The quoted order as aforesaid is dated 20. 7. 82. I have perused all previous orders passed thereto before but 1 do not find that at any stage whatsoever did the learned Magistrate satisfy himself that he had gone through the materials on the record and that the materials on the record did really make out a prima facie case. 4. MR. Basu continuing his contention submits that the learned Magistrate did not as a matter of fact apply his mind and that will be evident from his naming of the Order concerned. 4. MR. Basu continuing his contention submits that the learned Magistrate did not as a matter of fact apply his mind and that will be evident from his naming of the Order concerned. From the body of the charge framed it would appear that the learned Magistrate has stated in writing that there was violation of. "section 3 of W, B. Rice and Paddy restriction movement order 1977". Mr. Basu deplores by saying that the actual name of the Order concerned is "west Bengal Rice (Restriction on Movement. Order, 1977". It is thus clear from the materials on the record that the learned magistrate did not at all apply his mind while framing the charge in question thereby violating what the Supreme Court terms as "the liberty of the 'person concerned. " 5. TURNING now to the merits of the case, Mr. Basu contends that the violation that was made by his client, if there was any violation at all, was of a very technical nature inasmuch as there was only two days delay and that too occurred because of the accident, viz., that the truck concerned was exhibiting some mechanical defects on its way to the destination station Barasat, Mr. Basu reminds me by saying that the date of the permit was later on extended by the learned Magistrate on application by the petitioner. 6. MR. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the State, in his usual fairness contends that the driver-petitioner did really commit a technical fault inasmuch as the delay of two days was later on wiped out by way of extension of the date of the permit by the learned Magistrate concerned. Mr. Chatterjee also does not dispute that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and relied upon by Mr. Basu is well applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Indeed, in a case of such nature where there is clearly no mens rea of the accused-petitioner, the Magistrate concerned or the trial, court concerned will take special precaution to see that the liberty of the person concerned is not affected and that a charge is framed against the accused only after fully adverting to the materials on the record. In the result, the Rule is made absolute, the charge framing order set aside and the proceeding quashed. Rule made absolute.