JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated July 9, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 79/92, whereby, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was maintained, but the partner of the firm namely Paras Mal was acquitted of the charge. 2. The learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner as well as the co-accused Paras Mal under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide judgment dated July 9, 1987. On appeal, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer acquitted Parasmal, but maintained the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated July 9, 1992. 3. Two fold submissions was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that co-accused Parasmal was the proprietor of the firm M/s. Kanhaiyalal Parasmal. However, the learned trial Court convicted Parasmal as being the owner of the firm and the petitioner was convicted on the ground that at the time of inspection he was present on the shop and it was, he who had shown the register to the Enforcement Officer, as such, he was conducting the business of the firm. 4. The learned lower Appellate Court acquitted Parasmal observing that he could not be convicted simply being a partner of the firm, unless it was further established that he was in-charge of and was responsible to the firm. The conviction of the petitioner was, however, maintained. The learned Counsel contended that the findings of the Trial Court as well as of the lower Appellate Court are contradictory to each other, as to whether the firm M/s. Kanhaiyalal Parasmal was partnership firm or a proprietorship firm. The learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming that the firm was partnership firm, there was no evidence on the record that the petitioner was partner of the firm on the day when the inspection of the firm was made as well as on the day when the transaction of purchase was made. The learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming that the firm was partnership firm, there was no evidence on the record that the petitioner was partner of the firm on the day when the inspection of the firm was made as well as on the day when the transaction of purchase was made. It may be stated here the charge against the petitioner and the co-accused was that on 19.2.77 and 22.2.77 the firm had purchased more than 55 quintals of 'Gur', which was against the Licencing Order, 1972 and the second charge was that from 24.2.77 to 17.8.77 the register was not maintained. However, the petitioner was not convicted and sentenced for the second charge. For the first charge, on the basis of the above facts, the learned Counsel contended that there is no evidence on the record that on 19.2.77 or 22.2.77 when the aforesaid purchases were made, the petitioner was either the partner of the firm or he was in-charge' of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business. The second submission made by the learned Counsel is that as per statement of the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. he was 20 years of age on 25.5.87 when the statement was recorded, while the learned Trial Judge has estimated the age as 25 years, meaning thereby that on 24.2.77 he was below 18 years of age, as such, he could not have peen a partner in the firm. 5. In the light of the above contention, I examine, the material on the record as well as the judgment, of the Courts below. 6. None of the Courts below has held that the petitioner was a partner of the firm on 19.2.77 or 22.2.77 when the purchase were made. It was also not held that he was in-charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business on the aforesaid two dates i.e.19.2.77 and 22.2.1977. I also examined the evidence on the point, but I find that there is no evidence on the record on the basis of which a finding can be recorded that the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct to the business on 19.2.77 and 22.2.77 'Gur' was purchased by the firm. There is no evidence that purchases were made by the petitioner. There is no evidence that purchases were made by the petitioner. The offence was committed on 19.2.77 or 22.2.77 when the purchases were made in violation to the Order, therefore, these two dates were relevant for recording a conviction. In the absence of any finding, as well as, any evidence that the petitioner was a partner or proprietor or otherwise in-charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business on the above two dates is under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act can be maintained. As this revision succeeds on the first ground, the second ground is not discussed.Consequently, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and it is-hereby allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge: He is on bail and need not surrender. If the amount of fine has been deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him.Petition allowed. *******