J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the original accused who has questioned the legality and validity of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act for short) and alos for the offence under sections 18 and 20 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 (Order for short) by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Code for short ). The impugned order of conviction and sentence came to be passed on 14. 11. 1983 whereby the learned Special Judge Panchmahals at Godhra directed the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. A few material and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated at this stage. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the elder brother of the accused was running a grocery shop in the name of Kedarnath Kirana Bhandar situated opposite S. T. Bus Stand Dahod. On 26. 8 at about 1. 30 P. M. one Prant Officer of Dahod Mr. Adhiya received an information that kerosene was being sold in black market by unauthorised dealers. Therefore the Prant Officer Mr. Adhiya deputed his driver Bharatsinh Dolatsinh with an amount of Rs. 5/- to buy one litre of kerosene from wherever available. Consequently the prosecution witness Bharatsinh driver of the Prant Officer went to the said shop. At that time accused and one girl aged about 12 years were present in the shop. On inquiry the driver found that kerosene was sold there. Therefoere he requested the accused to sell him one litre of kerosene. It is the case of the prosecution that accused sold one litre of kerosene to the driver and charged Rs. 3/- per litre instead of the control price of Rs. 1. 85 ps. per litre. Thereafter the driver went back to the Prant Officer and informed him about the incident. In turn the Prant Officer informed the Supply Officer as well as Police Officer to raid the said shop. Thereafter the Supply Officer and two police Head Constables went to the shop of the accused. Mr. Adhiya also went there alongwith the said officers who questioned the accused. In turn the Prant Officer informed the Supply Officer as well as Police Officer to raid the said shop. Thereafter the Supply Officer and two police Head Constables went to the shop of the accused. Mr. Adhiya also went there alongwith the said officers who questioned the accused. The accused initially denied. Thereafter the police was called and in presence of the police the accused is alleged to have confessed to have sold one litre of kerosene. Subsequently search was taken. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that the shop was situated on the front side of the building whereas the inner side room was used for residential purpose. 15 litres of kerosene was found in each of the two tins. There were 4 tins of kerosene. The Deputy Mamlatdar thereafter seized the kerosene alongwith the measures which were on the tins. Subsequently the Prant Officer lodged the complaint as accused was not holding any licence to sell kerosene. In short the prosecution case was that accused had sold kerosene without licence and he charged more than the price fixed. ( 4 ) AFTER the complaint before the trial Court the learned Special Judge framed charges at Ex. 3 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that he had not sold kerosene to the driver-Bharatsinh. It was further contended by the accused that kerosene was lying in the residential premises of the building of his elder brother Babubhai Ramdayal Agrawal and that much quantity of kerosene was there as they were also running a hotel. It was denied that the Mamlatdar had recorded his statement. There is no dispute about the fact that the said grocery shop known as Kedarnath Kirana Bhandar was a sole proprietory concern of Babubhai Ramdayal Agrawal which was situated opposite S. T. Bus Stand Dahod. He was a C Class merchant and was dealing in petty agricultural produce. ( 5 ) ON examination and appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution the trial court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Act and clauses 6 18 and 20 of the Order and was therefore pleased to pass the aforesaid sentence order. Hence this appeal at the instance of the original accused. Hence this appeal at the instance of the original accused. After having examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence of the present case and having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned A. P. P. for the respondent/state this court is satisfied that the impugned order of conviction and sentence rocorded against the accused by the learned Special Judge is not justified. In very unusual and novel way of collecting information and sample a responsible officer like Prant Officer deputed his driver to visit the shop of the accused and purchase kerosene. In so far as the prosecution case is concerned it is contended that the driver Bharatsinh had purchased one litre of kerosene from the accused for Rs. 3/- instead of Rs. 1. 85 Ps. which was the control price. It is an admitted fact that no procedure was followed and no formality was observed. Nothing was done to show that the sample of kerosene purchased from the accused was for Rs. 3/- which was more than the fixed price. Nobody else was present. No Panch was taken to the shop. No Panchnama was prepared. The learned Special Judge has seriously erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Bharatsinh. The manner and mode in which the driver of the Prant Officer visited the shop of the accused and purchased the sample without observing necessary procedure and formality cannot be said to be sufficient to transfix the complicity of the accused with the offence for which he is charged with. Nobody else was present in the said shop. The version of the driver Bharatsinh is specifically denied. In absence of any corroboration to the evidence of the witness Bharatsinh it would he hazardous and unsafe to base the conviction on his sole testimony. ( 6 ) IN so far as the seizure of the quantity of kerosene is concerned the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the same was found from the shop of the accused. Again it may be mentioned that the premises are composite i. e. shop and the residence of the accused and the front room is used as shop and the inner room is used as residence. 30 litres of kerosene recovered from the premises is not proved to have been found in the shop portion. Again it may be mentioned that the premises are composite i. e. shop and the residence of the accused and the front room is used as shop and the inner room is used as residence. 30 litres of kerosene recovered from the premises is not proved to have been found in the shop portion. The defence version that it was for the domestic purpose and it was found in the portion of the residence is supported from the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that storing 30 litres of kerosene for household consumption was not prohibited at the relevant point of time. Brother of the accused was also running a hotel. ( 7 ) AFTER having examined the entire record this court has no hesitation in holding that the proseccution has failed to prove that the accused had committed offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Act. There is no clear evidence to show that the provisions of the said Order of 1981 were violated. The impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge are required to be quashed. ( 8 ) IN result the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence order are quashed. The amount of fine if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. In view of the valueless and useless muddamal articles no interference is required. Appeal Allowed. .