JUDGMENT S. Samvatsar, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant accused challenging judgment dated 15-9-1997 passed by Special Judge, Vidisha in (Jabalpur) special case No. 11/96 whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for committing offence u/s 3 read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for a period of 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In the present case charges have been framed against the appellant accused that on 20-9-1995 that 22-9-1995 Food Inspector on inspection of Government Fair Price Shop found that sugar has not been distributed to the consumers and forged entries have been made in the Register. It is alleged that the present appellant has sold the sugar in the black market by making forged entries in the Register which is contrary to M.P. Khadya Padarth Sarvajanik Poorti Vitran Scheme, 1991 and thus has committed an offence u/s 3 read with section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged that the present appellant by selling the sugar in the black market and making forged entries has contravented condition No. 9-T and condition No. 16 of the Scheme. Contention raised by counsel for appellant is that the appellant cannot be convicted u/s 7 read with section 3 of Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the Scheme. For this purpose counsel for appellant has invited attention of this Court to section 3 and 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides that if any person contravenes any order made u/s 3 he shall be punished as per the provisions of the Act. Contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that the Scheme contravention of which is alleged in the present case is not an order. Order is defined u/s 2(c) of the Act and which means 'order' which is notified in the official Gazette. Section 2(c) lays down that the 'order' includes a direction issued there under. In such circumstances for convicting the present appellant it is necessary for the State to show that the Scheme was notified in a Gazette or the Scheme was framed under the particular 'order'. In absence of any material to show that the scheme which is contravened by the present appellant is an 'order' or directions issued under an 'order' no punishment can be imposed on the appellant. Essential requirement is violation of an alleged 'order'. In absence of any material to show that the scheme which is contravened by the present appellant is an 'order' or directions issued under an 'order' no punishment can be imposed on the appellant. Essential requirement is violation of an alleged 'order'. State Government in the present case has not placed any material to show that the Scheme which is alleged to be violated was framed under the particular 'order' or is an 'order' itself. So long as this material is not placed on record the appellant's conviction u/s 7 cannot be maintained. This matter has been remanded by the Apex Court by order dated 13-9-2004 with a liberty to the parties to place material in support of their contentions and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the State to file material to show that any order as defined u/s 3(c) has been violated by the respondent. No such material has been placed by the present respondent till today in spite of the directions of the Supreme Court. In such circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as the present appellant cannot be punished for violation of Scheme which is not an 'order' or direction issued under an 'order'. In the result, this appeal stands allowed and the conviction of the Appellant u/s 3 read with section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is hereby set aside. Final Result : Allowed