JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted u/s.7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to S.I. for six months by the Special Judge, Araria in Special case No.25 of 1991 Tr. No.11 of 1996 by a judgment dated 26.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant (P.W.1) along with P.W.2 visited the room belonging to the appellants he found 91 bags of rice stored there which belonged to the appellants. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.6 is formal witness and P.W.7 and P.W.8 have stated that they did not know anything about the occurrence whereas P.W.9 and P.W.10 are tendered witnesses. P.W.2 has admitted that he did not see any customer at the place of occurrence, whereas P.W.3, who was the owner of the premises, has merely stated that rice was stored in the said room on account of rainy season. P.W.4 has also stated that he did not see the appellants selling rice to anyone which was also corroborated by P.W.1, the informant of the case. 4. Since there is no limitation on the storage of rice under the Unification Order, evidently the conviction of the appellants is bad in law. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 26.8.1996 by the Special Judge, Araria in Special case No.25 of 1991 Tr. No.11 of 1996 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.