JUDGMENT 1. . - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the Judgment dated, 10-9-1990 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 55/87 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 6-9-1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 16/80 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Mohan Lal and Rampyari for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but convicted the accused petitioners for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of Condition No. 3 of the Rajasthan Edible and Seeds Trading Licensing Order, 1977 and Condition No. 4 of Rajasthan Oil Seeds Licensing Order, 1978 and sentenced each of them as under : Name Conviction u/s Sentence awarded Bihari Lal 3/7/EC Act 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I. Bihar Lal Condition 3 of the order 1977 3 months R.I. and a fine Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo I month's R.I. Mohanlal and co. 3/7 Act A fine of Rs. 1000/-. Mohanlal and co. Condition 3 of the Order 1977 A fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 1-9-1979, firm M/s. Mohan Lal and Company, situated at Suratgarh of which petitioner Bihari Lal was partner was inspected by Devi Singh P.W.4, Enforcement Inspector, Suratgarh and at that time, Bihari Lal was not present at the firm, but his younger brother was there and after inspection the Enforcement Inspector, P.W. 4 Devi Singh was of the view that there was violation of Condition No. 3 of the Rajasthan Edible and Seeds Trading Licensing Order, 1977 and Condition No. 4 of Rajasthan Oil Seeds Licensing Order, 1978 as proper entries in the stock register were not made. 3. On the basis of that inspection, the accused petitioners and Mohan Lal and Smt. Ram Pyari were prosecuted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but acquitted another accused Mohan Lal and Smt. Ram Pyari for the offences charged against them. 4. 3. On the basis of that inspection, the accused petitioners and Mohan Lal and Smt. Ram Pyari were prosecuted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but acquitted another accused Mohan Lal and Smt. Ram Pyari for the offences charged against them. 4. Against the judgment and order dated 6-9-1985 the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner vide judgment dated 10-71990 and affirmed the judgment and order dated 6-9-1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. 5. In this revision petition the main submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that since the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar while hearing the appeal No. 94/80 against the said inspection and search pertaining to the disposal of the seized property came to the conclusion that search in question was illegal as P.W. 4 Devi Singh was not authorised to make out search and seizure and through judgment dated 17-1983 set aside the order of seizure passed by the learned Dist. Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 5-5-1980 holding that all the proceedings pertaining to search and seizure which took place on 1-9-1979 were without jurisdiction and thus released the property to the accused petitioners and further that judgment dated 1-7-1983 was affirmed by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 327/83 through judgment dated 30-7-1991 and this Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan. This Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan clearly observed that when P.W. 4 Devi Singh had no reason to believe that the firm had contravened the provisions of said order, the Inspector had no authority to enter into the premises of the firm and to make out search and seizure. Therefore, the search and seizure which took place on 1-9-1979 and which was conducted by P.W. 4 Devi Singh was void and thus initiated the whole proceedings of entry, search and seizure. This Court further observed that when the inspector P.W. 4 Devi Singh had no authority to make search and seizure the order passed by the learned Dist. Magistrate was also void. 6. This Court further observed that when the inspector P.W. 4 Devi Singh had no authority to make search and seizure the order passed by the learned Dist. Magistrate was also void. 6. On the other hand, the learned P.P. has observed that the judgment and order passed by the courts below are based on correct appreciation of evidence and they do not require any interference of this Court. 7. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 8. When the whole search and seizure has been declared void and without jurisdiction, the conviction for that seizure cannot be sustained or maintained. In other words, when the search of the premises of the M/s. Mohan Lal and Company has been declared illegal and that order has been upheld by this Court, on the basis of that search and seizure, findings of conviction cannot be sustained.For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed and judgment dated 10-7-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Sri Ganganagar and judgment and order dated 6-9-1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by which the accused petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act are set aside and the accused petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Since the accused petitioners are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Revision allowed. *******