JUDGMENT : 1) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Criminal Case No. 126/93, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 1½ months. 2) Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.06.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. at Sitapur village during the course of checking, Station House Officer, Police Station, Sitapur has found that Truck No. MP-27-4360 was standing in front of shop of the appellant and it was alleged that kerosene was being unloaded from the said truck. It was also alleged that the appellant was neither a registered dealer nor holding the license under order of the M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979. He has violated Rule 3 of the said order by which he committed offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Act has been filed before the Competent Authority. 4) The trial Court has framed charge under Section 3/7 of the Act. Accused/appellant denied the charge framed against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question. 5) Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has completely erred in not accepting the exemption of 400 litres of kerosene which has been brought effective from 31.10.1980 i.e. the date of notification for the rural places and also ignored that seized place is rural area. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was carrying business by using any dealer's licence, seizure has also not been proved according to law. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal and to acquit the appellant from the said charges. 6) Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal and to acquit the appellant from the said charges. 6) Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of trial Court. 8) Considering the facts and documents, it is clear that kerosene was seized from Sitapur near by the shop of the appellant, it is also clear that quantity of kerosene was within 400 litres which was seized from the appellant. 9) Section 19 of the M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 reads thus, “19. Exemption.- The State Government may by general or special order exempt any person or any class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Order and may at any time suspend or cancel such exemption.” 10) Page 83 of M.P. Law Times, 1980 Part VIII Hindi Section shows that State Government has exempted 400 litres kerosene stock for those persons who were living beyond the limit of municipal corporation and municipality area and the relevant portion thereof reads as under : ^^¼e/;izns'k jkti= ¼vlk/kkj.k½ fnukad 30&10&80 i`"B 1731 ij izdkf'kr½ Ø- 6474&3898&mUrhl&1&80] fnukad 28 vDVwcj] 1980&e/;izns'k fdjksflu O;kikjh vuqKkiu vkns'k] 1979 ds [k.M 19 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq, rFkk bl foHkkx ds vkns'k Ø- 1424&496&1&mUuhl&2&79] fnukad 15 ekpZ 1980 dks vfrf"Br djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V ,sls QqVdj fodzsrkvksa dks] tks fodz; ds fy;s fdjksflu dk fdlh le; esa ml ek=k ls] tks mDr vuqlwph ds dkye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V gS] vf/kd ek=k esa laxzg.k djrs gSa] mDr vkns'k ds leLr micU/kksa ds izorZu esa ,rn~}kjk NwV nsrh gS %& vuqlwph vuqdzekad O;kikjh ek=k ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ 1- uxjikfydk fuxe] uxjikfydk rFkk vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa dh lhekvksa ds Hkhrj fLFkr {ks=ksa esa ds QqVdj fodzsrkA 200 yhVj 2- Åij ds vUrxZr u vkus okys {ks=ksa esa ds O;kikjhA 400 yhVj 11) It is pertinent to mention here that Sitapur village is neither a municipal corporation nor a municipality area. Therefore, it is clear that there is no violation of Order 3 of M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 and this provision is not applicable to the case on hand, therefore, offence under Section 3/7 of the Act was not made out against the appellant. 12) Considering the above facts, circumstances, evidence and in view of the aforesaid provision, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has erred in holding the conviction against the appellant, which is not sustainable. 13) Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. 14) It is stated that the appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months in view of Section 437A of the Code.