Judgment O.P. Bishnoi, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused-Shankar Lal against a Judgment dated 16-5-1987 by the learned Special Judge (EC Act), Sirohi whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(i) and 3(2)(d) read with Section 7 of the EC Act and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On account of non-payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for three months has been awarded. 2. According to the prosecution story the dealership for distribution of essential goods for Wards No. 7 and 8 in the township of Sirohi was awarded to MIs. Shanker Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi and on the complaint of a consumer (P.W. 5 Vijay Singh) the said shop was visited by the Enforcement Inspector (P.W, 6 Karan Singh) on 4-6-1983. Inspection Report Ex. P/6 was prepared by the said P.W. 6 Karan Singh according to which the licence of the said firm, for dealing in essential commodities, was found valid up to 31 -3-1986 and on physical verification it was found that the stock of wheat and kerosene was found in order. Further it was found that the display board on the shop was dated 3-6-1983 and the entries of stock and prices were perfectly correct. However, it was found that the dealer was under obligation to maintain a stock of 50 litres kerosene whereas only 15 litres kerosene was found in the shop and further it was found that on the bills issued, the licence number and the unit number of the ration cards were not mentioned. In this way, it was found that the stock register was not correctly maintained and the dealer was guilty of breach of order No. 498, dated 27-4-1983 of the District Collector. 3. Itappears that a private complaint was filed by the Supply Department and the appellant was put to trial for the said offence before the said trial Court. The Judgment was delivered on 2-1-1985 and the Court came to a conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable and only a challan could be filed by the police. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged with the police and ultimately the challan was filed and the appellant was again put to trial. He pleaded not guilty. Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged with the police and ultimately the challan was filed and the appellant was again put to trial. He pleaded not guilty. Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. denied that he was the dealer at the relevant time and contended that after closing the shop he was serving somewhere in Gujarat. He further stated that he was implicated by P.W. 5 Vijay Singh on account of personal animosity; Arguments were then heard by the learned trial Court and the Judgment was delivered on 17-5-1987. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the accused. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the case. It is argued by the learned counsel1 that the accused has been found guilty for Breach of certain conditions for the licence, but the said licence has not been produced in evidence without which a finding of guilt of breach of any condition of the licence is not maintainable. Further it is stated that as per the report Ex. P/6, prepared on the date of inspection, the stock of wheat as well as of kerosene was found in order and there was no irregularity on that account. It is contended that as per the Inspection Report, Ex. P/6 only two irregularities were detected whereas subsequently for reasons best known to the prosecution the appellant was put to trial on as many as nine counts. Regarding the deposition of P.W. 5 Vijay Singh, it is submitted that he has made improvements in his statement from the complaint which was lodged by him and his evidence is unreliable. It is further submitted that the accused has been found guilty for not displaying the correct position of stock and prices on the display board but neither any copy of the entries on the board has been tendered in evidence nor the board was photographed. Ration cards and distribution register which have been produced in evidence have not been authenticated by any witness and whatever denial regarding distribution of kerosene etc. Ration cards and distribution register which have been produced in evidence have not been authenticated by any witness and whatever denial regarding distribution of kerosene etc. has been made by the witnesses is of no consequence for the reason that none of the witnesses was shown the distribution register and confronted with the signatures of the consumers. The learned Public Prosecutor has more or less supported the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court. .5. After hearing the two sides and perusing the record I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are unsustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed. As per the Judgment dated 16-5-1987 the appellant was tried on the below-mentioned nine counts: 1. Bills were not issued to the consumers. 2. Monthly returns were sent but their copies Were not supplied on 4-6-1983 at the time of inspection. 3. There was no entry in the stock register beyond 3-6-1987. .4. According to the stock register there was no stock of kerosene after 2-6-1983 but in fact 15 litres kerosene was found present at the time of inspection. .5. Stock and prices were not properly displayed on the display board. .6. Thedealership was for Ward Nos. 7 and 8 whereas on 17-5-1983 commodities were sold to the consumers belonging to Ward No. 6. 7. Instead of a minimum stock of 50 litres only 15 litres kerosene was found stored in the shop. 8. Kerosene was shown distributed to certain customers whereas actually the same was not distributed. 9. The licence number was not entered on the bills issued by the dealer. 6. Out of the said nine counts the appellant was acquitted in respect of the first two counts and was found guilty for the remaining seven counts. I find that the finding regarding guilt against the appellant is unacceptable. P.W. 1 Kundan Singh alias Poonam Singh, P.W. 2 Narayan Singh, Aaut Singh and P.W. 4 Kesar Singh have been examined to say that on 30-5-1983 and 3 1-5-1983 no kerosene was received by them from the dealer. However, none of them was shown the entry and the signatures in the stock register and hence the said denial is of no consequence. P.W. 1 Poonam Singh has admitted that in his absence his kids used to bring kerosene. However, none of them was shown the entry and the signatures in the stock register and hence the said denial is of no consequence. P.W. 1 Poonam Singh has admitted that in his absence his kids used to bring kerosene. Similarly, Narayan Singh has admitted that he never used to bring the kerosene and the same was brought by his family members. In these circumstances unless the entry in the distribution register was shown to the witness concerned the said deposition cannot be attached with much importance. 7. P.W. 5 Vijay Singh was stated in his examination-in-chief that in spite of the availability of kerosene, kerosene was not supplied to him and hence, the report Ex. P/S was lodged by him. He has improved in cross-examination and has stated that the accused used to charge 25 paise per litre more than the fixed rate. This allegation does not find place in Ex. P/5 nor the witness has disclosed the prevalent rate at which the kerosene was sold. The witness does not say that any entry of distribution regarding him was made without supplying kerosene to him. He has not been able to tell as to on which date, month or the year he went for kerosene and was not supplied the same. P.W. 7 Mangi Lal is a Government servant posted as Chanod. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that after 25-5-1983 he never went to get any supply of kerosene. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that it may be that the kerosene was procured by his wife in his absence. In these circumstances, the deposition of P.W. 7 Mangi Lal is also of no consequence. 8. P.W. 8 Varda Ram, P.W. 9 Varda Ram and P.W. 11 Chela are consumers but all the three have denied the prosecution story against the appellant and have been declared hostile witnesses. 9. P.W. 6 Karan Singh is the Enforcement Inspector who has stated that the shop was visited by him and was inspected on 4-6-1983 and the report Ex. P/6 was prepared by him. His deposition is based on the entries made in the distribution register Ex. P/7 and on the basis of certain ration cards. 9. P.W. 6 Karan Singh is the Enforcement Inspector who has stated that the shop was visited by him and was inspected on 4-6-1983 and the report Ex. P/6 was prepared by him. His deposition is based on the entries made in the distribution register Ex. P/7 and on the basis of certain ration cards. It may be stated at the very beginning that the authenticity of the distribution register as well as the ration cards has not been provided and no witness has come and stated that the ration cards in question were issued by the Supply Department to the concerned consumers nor anybody has come and stated that the distribution register Ex. P/7 was issued by the Supply Department to MIs. Shankar Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi. 10. Thehandwriting found in the distribution register Ex. P/7 as well as on the various ration cards was never sent to the expert to obtain a finding nor any witness has stated that they are in the handwriting of the appellant. No list of the consumers belonging to Ward Nos. 7 and 8 has been furnished nor any list of the consumers belonging to Ward No. 6 has been supplied, nor any consumer belonging to Ward No. 6 has been examined to establish that kerosene or wheat were distributed to them by the appellant. 11. In order to keep 50 litres kerosene in stock it was necessary that extra kerosene beyond the need of the consumers to the extent of 50 litres was actually supplied to the dealer. However, there is no evidence to infer that this extra kerosene was in fact supplied to the dealer. 12. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the original licence or its office copy have neither been tendered in evidence nor proved by any witness. Ex. P/29 is a copy issued under the signatures of one Paras Ram who has not been examined. It is, thus, not worth the paper on which it is printed. Consequently, it cannot be said that the conditions printed in Ex. P/29 were actually printed in the original licence. Non-production of the original licence is fatal for the prosecution. Without the production of original licence it is not acceptable that the dealership was in the name of MIs. Shankar Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi. 13. Consequently, it cannot be said that the conditions printed in Ex. P/29 were actually printed in the original licence. Non-production of the original licence is fatal for the prosecution. Without the production of original licence it is not acceptable that the dealership was in the name of MIs. Shankar Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi. 13. Learned trial Court has stated that so far as the fact that he was the dealer, there is an admission on the part of the appellant to the effect that his shop was checked. I find that there is no such admission made by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The substance of the charges was explained to the appellant on 10-7-1985 wherein also he does not say that he was a dealer of the concerned shop at the relevant time. He has simply stated that the shop was checked on 4-6-1983. Needless to say that on the basis of all this it cannot be said that any admission in this respect was ever made by the appellant. 14. Moreover, during the entire evidence it is not disclosed as to what was the status of the appellant-Shankar Lal in the firm MIs. Shankar Lal Kishna Ji. It is not disclosed as to whether the said firm was a partnership firm or was ownership firm. Unless the status of the appellant is disclosed and proved vis-a-vis MIs. Shankar Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi, he cannot be held responsible for any delinquency allegedly committed by the said firm. 15. In view of what has been said above the appeal is allowed. The Judgment under appeal is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and his bail bonds are cancelled.