R. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by the State of M. P. against the order dated 18-2-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Case No. 35/84 discharging the accused-respondents under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 2 ) THE accused-respondents are being prosecuted under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for selling the milk at a price in excess of the rate fixed by the order of the Collector Indore purported to be under Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1977. The learned Sessions Judge has by the impugned order dt. 18-2-1985 discharged the accused-respondents. Hence this revision by the State. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be dismissed, since the act of the accused-respondents could not amount to an offence as would become apparent from what is discussed hereunder. ( 4 ) THE State Government purporting to exercise the powers for controlling the price under S. 3 (2) (c) by virtue of delegated power conferred on it by GSR. No. 800, dt. 9th June, 1978 issued by the Central Government under S. 5 of the Act, amended the Exhibition of Price and Price Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter called 'the Price Control Order') by insertion of item No. 13 milk' in its schedule by a notification dt. 23rd June, 1984 and thereby declared 'milk' to be an essential commodity. The effect of this amendment was that in respect of 'milk' also the Collector had the authority to fix the price. The Collector, Jabalpur accordingly fixed price of milk at Jabalpur. ( 5 ) BUT the aforesaid amendment of including 'milk' as item No. 13 in the schedule of the Price Control Order was challenged by a writ petition M. P. No. 2306/84 dt. 19-6-1985 in the case of Dugdha Utpadak Evam Vikreta Sangh, Jabalpur v. State of M. P. , AIR 1986 MP 9 on the ground that the State Government could not have validly amended the schedule without having prior concurrence of the Central Government as per the delegated power conferred on it by the Central Government under GSR No. 800, dt. 9th June, 1978. That petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur and the State Government's notification dt. 9th June, 1978. That petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur and the State Government's notification dt. 23rd June, 1984 effecting the amendment of inserting 'milk' as item No. 13 in the schedule of the Price Control Order aforesaid was quashed. Consequently, the order of the Collector, Jabalpur fixing the price of milk pursuant to the said amendment was also quashed in that case. ( 6 ) TWO similar writ petitions (1) M. P. No. 587/84 Narayansingh and four others v. State of M. P. and two others, and (2) M. P. No. 682/84 Shankarlal v. State of M. P. and two others, were filed challenging a similar order fixing the price of milk at Indore by the Collector, Indore purporting to act under the Price Control Order, as amended by the aforesaid Government Notification dt. 23rd June, 1984. But both the petitions were allowed on 4-12-1988 in view of the aforesaid Division Bench Decision of this Court in Dugdha Utpadak Evam Vikreta Sangh, Jabalpur v. State of M. P. , 1985 Jab LJ 700 : (AIR 1986 Madh Pra 9 ). ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order of the Collector, Indore has been held unsustainable in law and as such, the contravention of that order could not amount to an offence under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence the impugned order of discharge passed by the learned Sessions Judge is justified and does not call for an interference and it is not necessary in the circumstances to go into the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for discharging the accused persons. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .