Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 110.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 384/2002 whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner and other co-accused for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act hereinafter). Aggrieved, by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned as also challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the wheat weighing 100 Qtls. which was seized in the instant case has been directed to be returned to one Dalchand Jain under Section 6(a) of the Act by the District Collector and therefore, it cannot be said that the wheat which was being transported by the petitioner in the truck bearing No. RRJ-9161 belongs to the Food Corporation of India and was meant for distribution to the persons below poverty line. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned framing charge. 5. From the perusal of the challan papers, it appears that a secret information was received by the police that wheat from Food Corporation of India meant for distribution to the Ration-card holders below poverty line in the triable area, is being transported by the petitioner in the said truck for black marketing. The wheat weighing 100 Qtls. was seized. On being inquired, it was informed that it was sent by one Dalchand and a bill dated 112.2001 was produced. The wheat was being transported on 212.2001 by a bill dated 112.2001. On investigation it revealed that the wheat having mark of FCI meant for distribution to the persons below poverty line in the triable area was being transported in the aforesaid truck for sending the same in the black market. Prima-facie there is evidence at this stage that the petitioner being transporter committed the offence alleged. Any order passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the Act can at best be used by the petitioner in defence. But so far framing of charge is concerned, it is settled law that only challan papers has to be considered nothing more. Any order passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the Act can at best be used by the petitioner in defence. But so far framing of charge is concerned, it is settled law that only challan papers has to be considered nothing more. The reference may be made to a three Judges Bench decision in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., JT 2004 (7) SC 243. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order impugned framing charge. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay application also stands dismissed.