JUDGMENT 1. - The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20th January, 1982, by which, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 2. On 16th July, 1976, Yogeshwar purchased a tube of `Borolene' from the shop of Khemchand-Nanakram General Merchants. On 6th Aug., 1976, one Sheodan Singh also purchased a tube of `Borolene' from the said shop, for which, the accused charged Rs. 2.29, while on that tube, the price mentioned was Rs. 2.07 and Lacal Taxes Extra. The accused thus charged Rs. 2.29, while the market-rate of the said tube was Rs. 2.21. It was alleged that the accused had violated the provisions of sections 5(2) & 5(4) of the Package Commodities (Regulation) Order, 1975 (for short, "the Order of 1975). A complaint was lodged by the District Supply Officer, Bundi: and the accused was prosecuted and charge-sheeted under section 114(2) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 read with section 5(2) & 5(4) of the Order of 1975. The accused denied the charges. The trial court, after concluding the trial, found that no case was made out against the accused-respondent, and so, it acquitted him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the lower court has not been able to appreciate the law-point involved in this case. According to him, the `Borolene' cost Rs. 2.07, and the respondent had charged Rs. 2.29; and thus, he bad clearly violated the Order of 1975. 4. There is no dispute about the purchase of the 'Borolene' tube from the respondent's shop, and also, there is no dispute that it was sold at Rs. 2.29. The cover of the 'Borolene' tube has been produced along with the challan, upon which, the rate prescribed is Rs. 2.07 and Local Taxes Extra. In its judgment the trial court has mentioned Rajasthan Sales Tax: .04 prise and Central Tax : 8 paise, which were to be charged as extra taxes. Thus, the retail price of the tube being Rs 2.07 and extra taxes being 22 paise, the total cost of the `Borolene' tube, came to Rs. 2.29, which the accused had charged. No doubt, it is on the record that `Rashtriya General Stores', Bundi, sold the `Borolene' tube at Rs. 2.20, which might have charged the taxes in his own way, but, it does not mean that the respondent who charged Rs. 2.29, which the accused had charged. No doubt, it is on the record that `Rashtriya General Stores', Bundi, sold the `Borolene' tube at Rs. 2.20, which might have charged the taxes in his own way, but, it does not mean that the respondent who charged Rs. 2.29, violated the Order of 1975. In calculation, Rashtriya General Stores' might not have charged Central Sales Tax, which was charged by the accused-respondent. So, absolutely, no offence has been committed by the respondent. The learned trial court has discussed in its judgment, every detail; and after calculating the various taxes, it has rightly held that the price charged by the respondent, was correct, and be did not violate the provisions of Order of 1975. As such, there is nothing to interfere in the order of acquittal. 5. The State-appeal having no substance, is therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******