Order.-The petitioner in this case, who is the 2nd accused in the trial Court has been convicted under section 65 of the Madras City Police Act for having in his possession 65 bags of urea and 15 bags of ammonium sulphate (chemical fertilizers) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50 with default sentence. The case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Erode, who convicted the petitioner under section 65 of the Madras City Police Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. The conviction and sentence of fine were confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode. The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the 2nd accused. There is no dispute that the premises from which the abovesaid fertilizer was recovered by the Sub-Inspector of Police were, at the time of the recovery, in the possession of the petitioner who was the 2nd accused in the trial Court. He too does not dispute the factum of possession of this quantity of fertilizer. It is not also in dispute that when the seizure was effected, there was in force certain Rules framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which fixed the price of the fertilizer and also prescribed that a seller in this commodity should take a licence for:he sale. But there is no statement on behalf of the prosecution that possession of such chemical fertilizer above any prescribed minimum quantity was an offence. Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act reads: “Whoever is found in possession or is proved to have been in possession of anything which there is reason to believe to be stolen property or property fraudulently obtained and for the possession of which he fails satisfactorily to account, shall be liable on conviction to fine not exceeding one hundred rupees or to imprisonment not exceeding three months.” There is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the circumstances of the petitioner’s possession of the fertilizer were such that one can entertain a reasonable belief that it was stolen property. The further question is whether the circumstance of the possession by the petitioner of fertilizer was sufficient to show that it must have been property fraudulently obtained by him. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove this essential ingredient is the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode, who made the seizure. The further question is whether the circumstance of the possession by the petitioner of fertilizer was sufficient to show that it must have been property fraudulently obtained by him. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove this essential ingredient is the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode, who made the seizure. According to him, he had information that ammonium sulphate and urea had been smuggled from Mysore State. But that is only hearsay and cannot take the place of proof. Later on in his evidence, the Sub-Inspector shifted his ground and contented himself with the statement, that investigation had revealed that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained these bags for sale. This again is hearsay and the Sub-Inspector’s satisfaction that the accused had obtained the bags of fertilizer would not suffice to prove the necessary ingredient for the offence. It is not the Sub-Inspector’s belief about the goods being stolen property or about the property being fraudulently obtained that is required for proving the ingredients of the offence. The circumstances which the Sub-Inspector relied upon must be placed before the Court and the Court must be satisfied, on the scrutiny of those circumstances, that a reasonable person can believe, as a result, that the property was stolen or fraudulently obtained. Unfortunately both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not bear this essential requirement in mind. The Sub-Magistrate observed after referring to the evidence of P.W.1 that the belief of P.W.1 that the bags were either stolen or fraudulently obtained was not baseless or unfounded and the “belief stands good even at this stage in my opinion inasmuch as the distribution of ammonium sulphate and urea is restricted.” Adverting to the last observation of the Sub-Magistrate that the distribution of ammonium sulphate and urea is restricted, the explanation of the petitioner that farmers who had obtained this fertilizer had pledged it with him cannot be ruled out as an impossibility. The burden of satisfactorily accounting for his possession, which section 65 lays on the petitioner, has to be discharged only after the prosecution adduces prima facie evidence for sustaining a belief regarding the property being stolen or being fraudulently obtained. The petitioner might have hoarded the stock of fertilizer by getting it from a number of persons who might have obtained it legitimately, with a view to dispose of it at high prices. The petitioner might have hoarded the stock of fertilizer by getting it from a number of persons who might have obtained it legitimately, with a view to dispose of it at high prices. But section 65 of the City Police Act is not the section intended to deal with such objectionable activity of hoarding or profiteering. It only deals with the offence of possessing stolen property or possessing property fraudulently obtained. Stress is thus laid upon the process by which the possession of property is obtained, and not upon the manner in which the petitioner might intend to dispose of the property subsequently. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal has made a curious remark that “admittedly” the petitioner had come into possession of the bags in a fraudulent way. Nowhere has the petitioner admitted that he obtained the bags of fertilizer in a fraudulent manner. His case as already stated, was that the bags were pledged with him by farmers, who had obtained them legitimately, and he produced some receipts Exhibit D-1 series in support of his plea. These receipts were disbelieved by the Courts below. But that is a different thing from saying that the petitioner admitted that he came into possession of the fertilizer fraudulently. In view of the foregoing, I am of opinion that the evidence of the Sub-Inspector to which I have made reference is not sufficient for proving the necessary ingredients for the offence namely that the fertilizer was obtained by the petitioner in a fraudulent manner. As mentioned already, there is no case urged that the property can be considered to be stolen property. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow the Revision Petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner. The sentence of fine is also set aside and the fine, if collected, will be refunded. The order about confiscation of the property is also not justified as there is no provision of law brought to my notice prohibiting the possession of this commodity as such. This order is also set aside. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.