JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Madurai dated 1.10.1993. Both the appellants stood charged for an offence punishable under Secs.6(2) and 46(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ and ‘the Act’ respectively). 2. The short facts are: Appellant No.1 is an authorised dealer for essential commodities and the fair price shop at Thanakkankulam. Appellant No.2 is the salesman of the said shop and he is the servant of A-1. He is responsible for the stock entrusted to him and supply to the cardholders the prescribed quantity and making necessary entries in the family card as well as in the registers. On 14.7.1992, the shop was inspected by the Civil Supplies Tahsildar, P.W.2 and party. At that time, it was noticed that on 6.7.1992, appellant No.2 sold four hundred litres of kerosene in open market to non-cardholders but he has shown as if the said quantity of kerosene was sold to cardholders and made necessary entries in the stock book. No bills were available for such sale and no entries were made in the ‘B’ register. On 29.5.1992 and 15.6.1992, appellant No.2 has supplied four kilograms of rice to 46 cardholders, whereas he has to supply only two kilograms. 3. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. On the evidence adduced, the learned Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Madurai concluded that the charges have been proved against both the appellant and convicted them. The first appellant was sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,500 and the second appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500 and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that no cardholder has been examined to support the case of the prosecution. One other argument that was advanced is the first appellant is a juristic person and it should be represented by the Special Officer, which has not been done. There is also no evidence to show that the salesman namely, the second appellant has to supply only two kilograms of rice to the cardholders and, therefore, the trial Judge is incorrect in finding the appellants guilty and sentencing them. There is also no evidence to show that the salesman namely, the second appellant has to supply only two kilograms of rice to the cardholders and, therefore, the trial Judge is incorrect in finding the appellants guilty and sentencing them. The learned Government Advocate for prosecution was unable to explain as to why none of the cardholders was examined to find out whether in reality two kilograms of rice was supplied of four kilograms. Admittedly, the Special Officer is the person who is representing the first accused but the records do not show that the Officer had not given any plausible explanation as to why no cardholder was examined. 4. In the above circumstances. I am of the view that the prosecution ought to have examined the cardholders to substantiate the allegations made by the prosecution and the non-examination of the cardholders is a good ground for holding that the conviction and sentence is not correct. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on both the accused are set aside and the second accused is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Fine amount if paid shall be refunded to the accused.