JUDGMENT Appellant Mahendra Singh has been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clause 13(1) (b) (vi) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 by keeping in stock and selling to cultivators a substance as a fertilizer which substance was not in fact a fertilizer. The appellant was also charged for dealing in fertilizer without a valid licence and for stocking 63 bags of fertilizer for sale which was adulterated. But, he was acquitted of these charges by the trial Court. 63 bags of fertilizer seized from the appellant on 3.11.1985 as per seizure memo Ex. P-2 by Shiv Kumar (PW 1) who was senior Agriculture Development Officer, have been found to be containing phosphate of 0.40%. Therefore, as per report Ex. P-6 of the Chemical Examiner it was found that these bags did not contain fertilizer. The case of the accused before the trial Court was that he purchased 70 bags of lime from Katni as per cash memo Ex. D-1 and the bags which were seized from him in fact contained lime. That defence was accepted by the trial Court. The appellant was acquitted of the three charges framed against him and there is no appeal by the State against the acquittal of the appellant on those charges. The appellant was held guilty for selling a substance as a fertilizer which substance was not in fact a fertilizer. That finding is based on the evidence of Charanlal (PW 3) and Ganesh (PW 4). The evidence of these witnesses has been perused by this Court. They have stated that they purchased 6 bags each from the accused. There is no cash memo or receipt or any other document to establish that the accused sold 6 bags each to these two persons. There is also no evidence of any witness before whom the sale of 6 bags each was made to these witnesses. Charanlal (PW 3) has stated that these bags were delivered to him by the accused at the house of Bhuwanlal (PW 5), but, Ganesh (PW 4) has stated that these bags were delivered to him from a bullock-cart which was standing near the house of Bharat Singh. According to the evidence of these two witnesses they put the substance of these bags in their fields, but, that did not give the expected yield. According to the evidence of these two witnesses they put the substance of these bags in their fields, but, that did not give the expected yield. From that they drew an inference that the bags which were purchased by them did not actually contain the super phosphate fertilizer. It is obvious that the substance of the bags which are said to have been sold to these witnesses were not examined or tested. Most important thing is that Charanlal (PW 3) and Ganesh (PW 4) do not say that they made any complaint to the police or any other person regarding the quality of the substance which is said to have been sold to them as fertilizer. It is extremely doubtful that the accused sold 6 bags each to Charanlal (PW 3) and Ganesh (PW 4). No assistance can be derived from the fact of the seizure of 63 bags of lime from the appellant as he has been acquitted of the charges that he stocked those bags as fertilizer. The oral evidence of Charanlal (PW 3) and Ganesh (PW 4) is not of such a nature on which the appellant can be convicted for the offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 13(1) (b) (vi) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. This appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge for which he was found guilty by the trial Court.