Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, for Essential Commodities Act and NDPS Act cases, Coimbatore in S.T.C.No.18 of 1997 on 27.5.1999 to set aside the conviction and sentence and to acquit the appellant herein.) The appellant was A-1 in S.T.C.No:18 of 1997 on the file of the Presiding Officer for Special Court for Essential Commodities/N.D.P.S Act cases at Coimbatore. This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction imposed on him under Clauses 6(2)(3) and (4) and 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to undergo simple imprisonment for for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/=, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts which led to the conviction of the appellant are as follows:- The appellant was the Salesman in the Fair Price Shop No.3, at Pongaliyur, run by the Pollachi Cooperative Wholesale Stores, Pollachi, in which the third accused was the authorised dealer. On 7.2.1997, at 5.30 p.m., A-1, the appellant herein has sold 10 kilograms of PDS wheat to one Tmt.Radha for Rs.45/= without any bill and that there was a shortage of stock to the tune of 25 kilograms of raw rice found missing during the inspection conducted by the sub Collector, Pollachi. Since the appellant, A.1 sold 6 bags of PDS rice to the 2nd accused and 10 kgs of wheat at Rs.45/= without any bill to one Radha, A.2 and the Circle Deputy Registrar was the Authorised dealer, the respondent filed charge sheet against them for the violation of Clauses 6(2)(3) and (4) and 14(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985. 3. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 17 were examined. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the offences against the appellant-A.1 has been proved and has been found guilty for offences under Section 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and imposed punishment mentioned supra. The trial court acquitted A.2 and A.3 as the charges have not been proved. The trial court acquitted A.2 and A.3 as the charges have not been proved. Aggrieved over the said judgment and conviction, this appeal has been filed by A.1. 4. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appeal can be disposed of on a simple question of law without going deep into the evidence adduced in the trial. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant assuming that the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is taken as true, even then, the punishment under clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is not sustainable in law. Clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is as follows:- "14. Further condition to be observed by the authorised retail shops--(1) Every authorised dealer shall-- (c) always maintain adequate stocks of the schedule commodities." 5. By the above clause only an authorised dealer can be prosecuted. The Section adds that "every authorised dealer shall". But in this case A.3 who was the authorised dealer was acquitted. On the other hand the salesman, the appellant herein was convicted for this offence. Acquitting the authorised dealer for a specific offence and convicting the Salesman under Clause 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 is not sustainable in law. The appellant has been acquitted for the contravention of Clause 6(2)(3) and (4) of the said Order. But his conviction under Clause 14(1) of the said Order is not sustainable, because Clause 14(1) of the said Order only deals with a "Authorized Dealer" and not with a "Salesman". For this simple reason, this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed accordingly. The fine amount, if any, paid already shall be refunded to the appellant and also his bail bond shall stand cancelled.