Judgment NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard Mr. Kashinath Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Mathur Public Prosecutor along with the Enforcement Inspector. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution was that Girdharilal and Ramchandra were fair price shop dealers. They obtained certain quantity of wheat under permits dated August 14, 1986 and August 20, 1986 from Scheduled Tribes Corporation, Udaipur and instead of distributing the food grains at the fair price shop sold these to firm Lalchand Kapurchand at Rs. 75/- per quintal. The goods were seized when these were being unloaded at the shop of Motilal and Kistoorchand. It was alleged that Gautamlal was also present at that time. ( 3 ) THE Special Judge Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur by his order dated May 2, 1987 discharged Kistoorchand Girdharilal and Ramchandra. However, he came to the conclusion that charge should be framed against Motilal and Gautamlal under section 3 read with section 7 and section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. Both Gautamlal and Motilal have filed Revisions Nos. 125 and 135 of 1987 against the order of the Special Judge. It was contended by Mr. Kashi Nath Joshi appearing on behalf of both the petitioners that admittedly the fair price shop dealers were Girdharilal and Ramchandra and both of them have been discharged by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur. It was argued that even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be correct, it were Girdharilal and Ramchandra who had violated the Rajasthan Food grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 and not the petitioners. Both Girdharilal and Ramchandra have been discharged by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act. Jodhpur and no charge could be framed against the petitioners for the above offence. It was also pointed out that section 7 provides punishment for contravention of any Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. In the order of the Special Judge it has nowhere been pointed out that the petitioners have contravened the provisions or any Order issued by the Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that there has been contravention of the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that there has been contravention of the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. This order is meant to regulate the distribution of essential articles by authorised whole seller or fair price shopkeeper. It provides that no person other than an authorised holder shall sell any of the food stains or any other essential articles supplied by the Government for distribution under the Order or any other order. By clause (6) of the said Order every person to whom an authorisation has been issued shall have to comply with the terms and conditions of such authorisation. The terms and conditions of authorisation are in Form 8 appended to the Order. Condition No. 2 provides that no authorisation holder shall refuse to sell food grains and other essential articles during business hours on the presentation to him of a valid permit, indent/ration-card to the extent of the amount of food grain or other essential articles due on the permit/indent/ration-card. Condition No. 3 of the terms and conditions provides that the authorisation holder shall not sell the food grains at a price in excess of then fixed by the State Govemment or the Collector and he shall not sell other essential articles similarly at an excess price than fixed by the appropriate Government. It is clear that if Girdharilal and Ramchandra had sold the wheat in question to a person other than the permit holder or the ration-cardholder and at price in excess than that fixed by the Government, then it were they who could be said to have contravened the terms and conditions contained in their authorisation. The above Order does not impose any liability upon the person purchasing the essential articles from a fair price shop dealer. It was inquired from the learned Public Prosecutor whether there is any provision in this Order creating any penal liability against the purchaser. He could not point out any specific provision in the Order. The above Order does not impose any liability upon the person purchasing the essential articles from a fair price shop dealer. It was inquired from the learned Public Prosecutor whether there is any provision in this Order creating any penal liability against the purchaser. He could not point out any specific provision in the Order. It has already been pointed out that the real offenders who were alleged by the prosecution to have contravened the provisions of the above Order have been discharged by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur and consequently even a charge against both the petitioners about criminal conspiracy by them with Girdharilal and Ramchandra to commit the contravention of the provisions of the said Order cannot be framed for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with himself. Even if any criminal breach of trust was committed, it was Girdharilal and Ramchandra to whom the food grains had been entrusted according to the prosecution for distribution in accordance with the provisions of the above referred Order. For reasons stated above, no offence appears to have been committed by both the petitioners which can be punishable under section 3 read with section 7 and section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act and they deserve to be discharged. ( 5 ) I, therefore, allow both the Criminal Revisions Nos. 125 and 135 of 1987 and set aside the order of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur, dated May 2, 1987 and discharge both Goutamlal and Motilal for the offences punishable under section 7 and section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act.