JUDGMENT Applicant-accused Maniram, son of Abhayram Kashyap resident of Jarhagaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur, has been convicted and sentenced to S.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 15 days, for having committed an offence under clause 6(4) of the M.P.Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme,1981, punishable under section 3, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, by special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No.10/85, and against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the applicant Maniram has come up in this revision-petition. According to the prosecution, the applicant was a Samiti Sewak in Jarhagaon Sahkari Samiti. In the year 1985, the Jarhagaon Sahkari Samiti, had received 15 quintals of sugar and 20 quintals of rice from Takhatpur Sahkari Samiti and the same was to be distributed in village Jarhagaon and Chitwakapa. According to the prosecution, on 27.7.1985, three bags of sugar belonging to Jarhagaon Sahakari Samiti, were seized by the police which were being carried in Truck No.S085 driven by Rajendra Prasad. After investigation, a charge-sheet had been put up against the applicant Maniram and also against the said Rajendra Prasad. Accused Rajendra Prasad had been acquitted by the trial Court, but the present applicant Maniram was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under section 3, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On behalf of the applicant-accused Maniram it has mainly been submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed an error in convicting the applicant under section 3, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for violation of clause 6(4) of the M.P.Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1981, and that the Special Judge failed to take into cosideration that the aforesaid Scheme of 1981 had no statutory force. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that there was no material on record for finding the applicant guilty of the offences against him. On behalf of the non-applicant/State of M.P., it was submitted that the learned Special Judge had committed no illegality in finding the applicant guilty, counsel for the non-applicant-State of M.P.has cited AIR 1981 S C 2001 (M.P.Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P.). On behalf of the non-applicant/State of M.P., it was submitted that the learned Special Judge had committed no illegality in finding the applicant guilty, counsel for the non-applicant-State of M.P.has cited AIR 1981 S C 2001 (M.P.Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P.). The main submission made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant Maniram could not have been convicted and sentenced for violation of clause 6(4) of M.P. Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme,1981, because the said Scheme had no statutory force, seems to be correct, because, "Scheme" is not an "Order" under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, and for the breach of· any clause of M.P.Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1981, no prosecution can be la unched as has been held in 1990 JLJ 348 (Mohan versus State of M.P.). Counsel for the non-applicant/State of M.P. had cited M.P.Ration Vikreta Sangh Society versus State of M.P. (supra), but this citation does not apply to the facts of this case, because the point involved in the aforesaid case, was different. The point involved in that case was: whether the M.P.(Foodstuffs)-Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, formulated by the State Government under sub-clause(d) of clause 2 of the M.P.Food Stuffs(Distribution) Control Order,1960, introducing a new scheme for running of Government fair price shops by agents to be appointed under a Government scheme giving preference to co-operative societies, in replacement of the earlier scheme of running such fair price shops through retail dealers appointed under Clause 3 of the order, is violative of Articles 14and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Apex Court decided this point-by holding that the scheme in no way infringes the petitioner's right to carryon their trade in foodgrains. They are free to carry on business as wholesale or retail dealers in--foodgrains by taking out licences under the M.P. Food grains (Licensing) Order, 1964. There is no fundmental right in anyone to be appointed as an agent of a fair price shops under a Govt. Scheme. The applicant Maniram could not have been convicted and sentenced for violation of clause 6(4) of the M.P.Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Vitaran Scheme, 1981, because the said Scheme has no statutory force, because the "Scheme" is not an "Order" under section 3, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act -- as held in 1989 Cr L R (M.P.) 473 (Mohan v. State of M.P.) (supra). On this account alone, the revision petition, filed on behalf of the applicant Maniram, deserves to be allowed. The revision-petition, filed on behalf of the applicant Maniram, is allowed . and the conviction and sentence of S.I.for three months and a fine of Rs.l,000/-, and in default further S.I.for 15 days, passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No.10 of 1985, for violation of caluse 6(4) of the M.P.Khadya Padarth Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1981, punishable under section 3 read with section 7of the Essential Commodities Act, is set aside and the applicant Maniram shall stand acquitted of the aforesaid offences. Applicant Maniram is on bail. His bail-bonds shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if deposited ,shall be refunded to the applicant Maniram. 1990 JIJ 348 relied on. AIR 1981 SC 2001 distinguished.