Judgment Narinder Singh Rao, J. 1. Arjun Ram, who was a fair-price shop delear in village Nagabad, distirict Giridih, in November 1985 and even prior thereto, the appellant, stands convicted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. The fair-price shop of the appellant was raided by the Supply Officer, Aditya Kumar Mishra P.W. 2 and his staff, on 26-11-1985, at about 2.00 p m, and it was found that although the fixed sale price of sugar was Rs. 4.25 p. per kg. and that of kerosene oil Rs. 2.26 per litre, but the appellant had been selling sugar at Rs. 4.70 per kg. and kerosene oil at Rs. 2.70 per litre. The Supply Officer had recorded statements of Subhlal Das, Jagan Manjhi, Padha Rai, Akal Rai, Gobardhan Pandit and Somar Pandit, who were stated to have been charged extra by the appellant. Their statements were filed alongwith the complaint, in the Court of the Special Judge Giridih, on 30-11-1985. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above. 3. Out of three witnesses examined by the prosecution, Ishwari Narain Deo, P.W. 1 and Kishori Pathab P.W. 3 were the witnesses, who had attested the memo Ext. 3. vide which entire stock of sugar and kerosene oil found at the shop of the appellant had been seized after raid, P.W. 1 had in addition deposed about his being charged by the appellant at the rate of Rs. 4.70 per kg. for sugar and Rs. 2.70 per litre for kerosene oil. Aditya Kumar Mishra P.W. 2 was heading the raiding party. 4. The appellant in his examination, had denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was innocent. The plea put forward on his behalf was that P.Ws. 1 and 3 had colluded with the authorities in getting his shop raided, although he was totally innocent, as they themselves wanted to run a fair-price shop in the village. He had not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, and going through the record, it is found that as the prosecution has remained unsuccessful in proving its case, this appeal deserves to succeed. 6. He had not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, and going through the record, it is found that as the prosecution has remained unsuccessful in proving its case, this appeal deserves to succeed. 6. The main charge against the appellant is that he was charging an excessive amount for selling sugar and kerosene oil. P.W. 2 had recorded statement of six persons in that behalf, but not even one out of them was examined at the trial. What they had stated before P.W. 2 was not a substantive evidence. Therefore, the contents thereof could not be taken into consideration in convicting the appellant. Those persons, who were allegedly charged extra were required to be examined as witnesses by the prosecution, but not even one out of them was required to depose against the appellant, Similarly, no such parson was examined by the prosecution to whom the appellant had sold the essential commodities, but had issued no receipts. The only reliance of the prosecution on the points is on the evidence of P.W. 1 whose statement is wholly unsatisfactory. He had admitted that his son, and not he used to go for purchasing articles from the appellant. That son of P.W. 1 was also not examined by the prosecution. Undoubtedly, material brought on record is wholly insufficient for committing the appellant with the offence charged. 7. For reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds, and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside, and he is acquitted, of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, and he is discharged from the liabilities of the same. The articles seized from the appellant are ordered to be refunded to him, if not already sold; and if sold, the sale-proceeds thereof shall be paid to him.