JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to RI for one year by a judgment dated 19.08.1995 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 1501/86, T.R. Case No. 125 of 1995. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.09.1986 when P.W. 6 who was the Supply Inspector inspected the shop of the Appellant he found the cash- memos not in accordance with the alleged lifting of sugar in his shop. It was therefore suspected that the Appellant had black-marketed the sugar after lifting it for distribution among the PDS consumers. 3. The prosecution examined only two witnesses on its behalf out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant whereas P.W. 2 is a formal witness. 4. Considering that the prosecution has only brought on record the evidence of the two witnesses and there is no substantial material that the Appellant had infact indulged in black-marketing, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case as having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 19.08.1995 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 1501/86, T.R. Case No. 125 of 1995 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.