Order:- This petition is for revision of conviction and sentence imposed by the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, on the petitioner who was the second accused in a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The act alleged against the two accused in the case is that at 10 a.m. on 10th September, 1964, they sold to P.W. 3, lour liters of Andhra Coarse Rice at 68 Ps. per litre, while the maximum price fixed by law for the commodity was only 60 Ps. per litre The 1st accused is the salesman who measured the rice to P.W. 3, and the 2nd accused is the accountant of the shop who made the bill therefor. The 1st accused has been acquitted by the District Magistrate; and the 2nd accused has been convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500 with simple imprisonment for four months in default. Hence this motion for revision by the 2nd accused. Counsel for the petitioner points out that no notification fixing the maximum price for the commodity is in proof in this case. True it is that black-marketing is a highly anti-social conduct that deserves severe punishment by Courts; but that is no reason to overlook the standard of proof in criminal trials. In Salekh Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1, the appellants were convicted for selling cement at a price above the maximum rate notified under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Supreme Court held: "In order to ascertain whether the price of Rs. 9-14 per bag was beyond the controlled rate of cement, there ought to have been on the record legal evidence as to what was the controlled price of a bag of cement fixed under section 6 or section 7 of the U.P. Cement Control Order of 1953......Since there is no legal proof to that effect, it is clear that it has not been established on the evidence, as it stands that the sale of cement by the appellants was beyond the controlled price of cement fixed according to law." "It was urged on behalf of the State, however, that this point had not been taken in any of the Courts below and that at no time had it been questioned that the controlled price of cement was other than what had been stated by Iswar Sahai. That may be so. That may be so. If, however, it has to be established that the appellants sold the cement beyond the controlled price, then there must be legal proof of what that controlled price was at the time the sale took place. As in this case such evidence is lacking, it will be impossible for this Court to uphold the conviction there being no legal proof as to what was the controlled price of cement on the date of sale. In our opinion even at this stage such a point can be taken as it would be the duty of this Court to see that there was legal evidence as to what was the controlled price of cement on the date of the sale before it could say that the appellants had been rightly convicted of the offence with which they had been charged. As there is no legal proof of what was the controlled price of cement on the date of the sale of the cement by the appellants, they could not be convicted of the offence with which they had been charged. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside." It has been ruled by a bench of this Court in Chacko Pyli v. State of Kerala1, that notifications of the kind in question are not matters for judicial notice, but for proof by production of the gazette or otherwise. As no notification fixing the maximum price for the goods is in proof here the prosecution cannot be said to have made out a case against the accused. The learned State Prosecutor wanted a remit of the case to cure the defect in proof. All that is alleged against the petitioner is an illegal profiteering of 32 Ps. in a transaction. I do not think that justice requires a re-trial in this case. The example of the Supreme Court precedent (cited above) does not require it. In the circumstances, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and acquit him. The fine, if any, realised by the State will be refunded to the accused M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.