Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.1984 passed by Sri J.K. Prasad, 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranch in Criminal Appeal No 280/83 affirming the judgment of the trial Court who had convicted the petitioner under Sec. 8 of the Essential Commodities (E.C ) Act and sentenced him to undergo Rule I for three months. 2. It appears that the grossery shop of the petitioner, in the name and style of Hare Krishna Choadhary was inspected on 31.8.1976 by the D.C.L.R. (P.W. 3) when the proprietor of the said store was absent and this petitioner is said to have been working there conducting the business of that store. 3. It appears that three charges were framed against the petitioner in support of which three witnesses were examined The petitioner was acquitted on two of the charges but he was convicted of the third charge which reads as follows: That you being the retail foodgrains licensee, did not maintain the correct register of daily account of receipt and sale of foodgrains nor did you maintain cash memos books in contravention and violation of Secs. 3 and 7 of the Foodgrains Licence issued under Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967. 4. Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was admittedly not the proprietor of that store cannot he held liable for contravention of the terms and conditions of the license, hi support of his submission Mr. Agrawal placed the prescribed form indicated in From C of the Licensing Order which indicates that only the licensee is responsible for complying with the conditions mentioned therein in the licence. The terms of the licence does not make either responsible or liable any person found persent in the shop premises conducting the business. This submission of the learned Counsel is further fortified if we look into the judgment of the trail court. The trail court, after discussion of the evidence, has held that for violation, of the terms and conditions of the licence, in his opinion, only the licensee can be held liable. This submission of the learned Counsel is further fortified if we look into the judgment of the trail court. The trail court, after discussion of the evidence, has held that for violation, of the terms and conditions of the licence, in his opinion, only the licensee can be held liable. The trail court has further held that the accused petitioner was looking after the affairs of the shop and so he can be held liable for abatement of the commission of the offence and unfortunately for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the licensee Hare Krishna Choudhary, has not been made an accused in this case. Thereafter, the court has come to the conclusion that The petitioner is liable under Sec. 8 of the E.C. Act and accordingly, convicted him. 5. Thus it is clear on the basis of the own findings of the trial court which has not been rebutted even in the appellate court judgment nor even discussed, the petitioner was not liable for violation of any of the terms or conditions of the licence. Therefore, there is no question of any abatement of the offence. 6. Sec. 8 of the E.C. Act says that any person who attempt to contravene, or abates a contravention of any Order made under Sec. 3, shall be deemed to have contravened that Order. Sec. 3 of the said Act imposes liability on the licensee for maintaining the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore any other persons, other than the licensee, cannot be liable for contravention of the conditions or terms of the licence. 7. It appears to be a peculiar case because in this case the main accused was Hare Krishna Choudhary, admittedly the proprietor of the store, has not been made an accused. This petitioner who happens to be person being the brother of the owner, has been made an accused in this case It is also significant to note that no specific charge has been framed against him under Sec. 8 of the E.C. Act nor any specific question was put to him while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This shows that the petitioners was convicted for the offence aforesaid, without any specific charge, without any specific question put to him and without any opinion as to under what circumstance he was liable for conviction under Sec. 3 of the Act although according the opinion of the trial court itself, he was not liable for that and in these circumstances his conviction cannot sustained in law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed, The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner are hereby set aside. Since the petitioner is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.