ORDER 1. The applicant, being aggrieved by the judgment and findings dated 28.1.1991 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1990, by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, confirming the judgment dated 19.6.1990 delivered in Criminal C1se No. 108 of 1988, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh, convicting the applicant under section 8 (1) read with section 13 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, has filed this revision. 2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution are that on 22.1.198, L.A. Thakur (P. W. 8) inspected the rice mill belonging to the applicant and found that a huller machine was found running with the assistance of 12.5 horse power motor. In the inspection, it was also found that rice barn belonging to other agriculturists was also used in the huller machine. The Food Inspector, finding breach of sections (1) and 8 (2) of the Act, after obtaining sanction from the Collector, Raigarh, filed a challan on 29.2.1988. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the rice mill (huller mill) was in operation but could prove that the accused has established a rice mill in contravention of section 8 (1) of the Act. The accused was acquitted of the offence under section 8 (2) but was convicted for the offence under section 8 (1) of the Act and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two months and was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the admitted facts that the huller machine was installed in the year 1978, the applicant could not be convicted for the offence under section 8 (1) of the Act. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the admitted facts that the huller machine was installed in the year 1978, the applicant could not be convicted for the offence under section 8 (1) of the Act. 3-A. Section 3 of the Act defines defunct rice mill, existing rice mill and new rice mill as under: "defunct rice mill means- (i) a rice mill in existence at the commencement of this Act but, in which rice milling operations have not been carried on for a continuous period of one year to such commencement; and (ii) a rice mill (whether established before or after such commencement) in which rice milling operations are not carried on for a continuous period of one year at any time after the commencement of Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1968." "existing rice mill" means a rice mill carrying on rice milling operations at the commencement of this Act and includes a rice mill in existence at such commencement which is not carrying on rice-milling operations but in which rice-milling operations have been carried on at any time within a period of one year prior to such commencement: Provided that if in any such rice mill rice milling operations are not carried on for a continuous period of one year at any time after the commencement of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1968, such mill shall, on the expiry of the said period of one year, cease to be an existing rice mill and be deemed to be a defunct rice mill." "New rice mill" means rice mill other than an existing rice mill or a defunct rice mill." Section 5 directs that any person may make an application to the Central Government for grant of a permit for establishment of a new rice mill and any owner of a defunct rice mill may make a like application for grant of a permit for re-commencing rice milling operations in such mill. Section 5 relates to permit which is the mandatory requirement in relation to establishment of a new rice mill or re-commencing of a defunct rice mill. Section 5 relates to permit which is the mandatory requirement in relation to establishment of a new rice mill or re-commencing of a defunct rice mill. Section 6 states that any owner of the existing rice mill or of a rice mill in respect of which a permit granted under section 5 is effective, may make an application to the licensing officer for grant of licence for carrying on rice milling operations. Rule 4 of the Rice Milling Industry Regulation and Planning Rules, 1959, provides that an application for grant of a licence may be made by the owner of a new rice mill, who has obtained a permit under section 5 of the Act, after he has established the mill within the prescribed period, or by the owner of a defunct rice mill, after he has been granted a permit for re-commencing milling operations or by the owner of an existing mill within such period after the commencement of the Act, as may be specified. 4. The scheme of the Act is that rice milling operations should not be carried on without prior licence. The Legislature knew well that even before the commencement of the Act, some rice milling industries were in operation and some were defunct and some rice mil1s were likely to be established in future, therefore, the legislature being aware of the situation made a pointed distinction between the defunct rice mill, the existing rice mill and a new rice mill. The existing rice mill is a mill which is carrying on rice milling operations, while a defunct rice mill means the rice mill is in existence but is not carrying on rice milling operations. A new rice mill is other than the existing rice mill or a defunct rice mill. A licence is mandatory for the existing rice mill under section 6 of the Act as it is in operation and the law safeguards rice milling operation with the proper licence. On the other hand, according to section 5, an application for establishment of a new rice mill or for re-commencing a defunct rice mill may be made. Here, again the pointed distinction is to be observed. A new rice mill is yet to be established while a defunct rice mill is to be re-commenced. Either for establishment or for recommencing a rice mill, a permit under section 5 is required. Here, again the pointed distinction is to be observed. A new rice mill is yet to be established while a defunct rice mill is to be re-commenced. Either for establishment or for recommencing a rice mill, a permit under section 5 is required. If within the period of the permit, a new rice mill is est.1blished or a defunct rice mill is made workable, then these two mills are also required to obtain a licence under section 5. Rule 4 again makes a distinction between these three mills, for the purposes of section 8 (2). The learned trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution could not prove that after the commencement of the Act, the accused was carrying on rice milling operations, except under and in accordance with the licence granted under section 6: Sub-section 2 of section 8 applies to existing rice mill. Section 8 (1) of the Act forbids establishment of a new rice mill. It was not the case of the prosecution, nor was it found by the trial Court that the accused has est.1blished a new rice mill. In fact, the prosecution case is that the accused who held a licence earlier had applied for its renewal, without having a valid licence issued under section 6 was carrying on milling operations. If the allegations were proved, it could be only a case under section 8 (2) of the Act, but against his acquittal no appeal was filed by the St1te, therefore, the said acquittal has assumed finality and cannot be challenged before any Court. 5. The learned appellate Court, in para 11 of the impugned judgment has taken a very curious stand. It held that despite acquittal under section 8 (2) of the Act, the appellate Court was entitled, though there was no appeal against acquittal, to reappreciate the evidence and come to its independent findings. In my opinion, the approach is wholly unjustified and illegal. Once the accused is acquitted and the acquitt.1l is not challenged, then no Court or authority can give a contrary finding even for holding him guilty in some other offence. The approach of the learned appellate Court is bad in law. 6. The learned appellate Court without appreciating that it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused had established a new rice mill, wrongly found him guilty. The approach of the learned appellate Court is bad in law. 6. The learned appellate Court without appreciating that it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused had established a new rice mill, wrongly found him guilty. In para 9 of the judgment, the learned appellate Court found that in the year 1978-79, permission was granted to the applicant. It further held that in the absence of renewal of the licence, he was not entitled to establish a mill for an indefinite period. This Court is unable to understand from where the word establish has been used or could be used by the learned appellate Court. It was an existing mill and if the applicant committed an offence because of breach of section 8 (2), then he could be convicted only under the provisions of section 8 (2) read with section 13 of the Ad. In the absence of a finding that the applicant had established a new rice mill, the prosecution is hound to fail. The prosecution did not come with the case that the accused has established a new rice mill. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused committed any offence under section 8 (1) of the Act punishable under section 13 of the Act. 7. The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence are quashed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if realised, he returned back to the applicant.