JUDGMENT This revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 3.9.1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Rajgarh, in special case No. 7/98 whereby the applicant has been charged for having committed an offence punishable under clause 3(2) and 4(c) of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (For short 'the order') read with section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The prosecution case is that the accused-applicant used to sell kerosene oil supplied under the public distribution system for the purpose of cooking and illumination. The applicant used the kerosene oil for purpose, other than cooking and illumination. From the perusal of the record, it revealed that on 7.1.1998 the Naib Tahsildar, Biaora, raided the house of the applicant and seized 8 liters of kerosene oil from his house, FIR was lodged. After investigation challan was filed. After hearing the applicant and prosecution passed order and framed charge as stated above. The applicant-accused is challenging this order. Shri Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that there is no material at all that the applicant accused used the kerosene oil for purpose other than cooking and illumination and, therefore, the charge be quashed. Shri Salim, learned Panel Lawyer, supported the impugned order. I considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides. Admittedly, 8 liters of kerosene oil was seized from the house of the applicant on 7.1.1998 in the raid made by Naib Tahsildar (Biaora) Shri P.D. Maniya. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was not entitled to have 8 liters of kerosene oil in his possession. The charge is only that he used the kerosene oil for purpose other than cooking and illumination. But there is no material at all, on record, to establish that the applicant used the kerosene oil for purpose other than cooking and illumination. It was argued that the applicant used to sell kerosene oil to others. But there is no material on record to prove this fact. One Fakira (PW 1) has been examined by the State. He did not state that the saw the applicant selling kerosene oil nor the applicant was caught selling the same. In my opinion, no prima-facie case is made out again the applicant under clause 3(2) of the Order. But there is no material on record to prove this fact. One Fakira (PW 1) has been examined by the State. He did not state that the saw the applicant selling kerosene oil nor the applicant was caught selling the same. In my opinion, no prima-facie case is made out again the applicant under clause 3(2) of the Order. Clause 4(c) applies to dealer and admittedly the applicant is not a dealer. Therefore, charge under clause 3(2) and 4(c) Order r/w 3/7 Act could not be framed. In view of this, the order dated 3.9.1998 is set-aside and the charge framed against the applicant is quashed. The bail-bonds of the applicant are cancelled. The seized kerosene oil be delivered to the applicant.