JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh in Special Sessions Case No.4/1993 whereby the petitioner-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.1992, at about 5.30 p.m., Tehsildar, Chittorgarh conducted search in the house of Shyamlal situated at the village Bassi in his presence and found 229 bags of agricultural produce out of which 50 bags were of Gram Pulse, 20 bags of Lentil Pulse, 15 bags of Wheat and 26 bags of Barley, total 106 bags in Room No.1. In Room No.2, 44 bags of Gram Pulse, 48 bags of Lentil Pulse, 2 big bags and 1 small bag of Mustard and in another situated near pole, 11 bags of Barley, 7 bags of Fenugreek and out of room 4 big bags and 1 small bag were found. As per the statement of Shyamlal, he retained 85 bags from his own agricultural produce for sale and purchase for which he was not having any account. 144 bags were purchased from the nearby villages for which he did not pay any Mandi Tax. 3. On the basis of this, an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner-accused. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 3/7 of the Act by the SHO, PS Vijaypur on 26.05.1993. 4. 3. On the basis of this, an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner-accused. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 3/7 of the Act by the SHO, PS Vijaypur on 26.05.1993. 4. The substance of charge was explained to the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act in the following terms:- " fnukad 26-9-92 dks lka;dky 5-30 cts izorZu fujh{kd ,oa muds ny }kjk pSfdax djus ij vkids vkoklh; edku dh ryk'kh fy;s tkus ij vkoklh; edku esa fLFkr dejksa] cjkenksa ,oa iksy esa ls dqy 229 cksjh d`f"k mit ikbZ xbZ ftlesa 50 cksjh puk] 20 cksjh elwj ,oa 15 cksjh dqy 85 cksjh d`f"k ftUl Loa; dh [ksrh dh mit ikbZ xbZ fdUrq 'ks"k 144 cksjh d`f"k mit vklikl ds xkaoksa ds dk'rdkjksa ls [kjhndj cLlh esa edku esa laxzfgr djuk vkSj blds fy;s vkids ikl dksbZ os/k vuqKki= ugha gksuk o e.Mh 'kqYd Hkh ugha pqdk;k ik;k x;kA bl izdkj vkius jktLFkku O;kikfjd oLrq ( vuqKki= ,oa fu;a=.k ) vkns'k] 1980 ds izko/kkuksa dk mYy?kau dj /kkjk 3@7 vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k fd;kA " 5. The above charge was denied by the petitioner-accused and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Yogendra Singh (PW-1), Ashok Kumar Chokhra (PW-2), Balmukund (PW-3), Nandkishore Kothari (PW-4), Ramswaroop (PW-5), Kanhaiyalal Gurjar (PW-6) SHO and Gaurishankar Paliwal (PW-7) Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. and all incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to him for his explanation for which he stated that the house is a joint property and he does not deal in the food grain business. He is having business of clothes and the recovered foodgrain belongs to all the brothers and is their agricultural produce, which was released on supardgi by the Magistrate. In defence, he examined Bardhi Chand (DW-1), Badrilal (DW-2) and Ramvilas (DW-3). Thereafter, after hearing, the learned trial court, reached on the conclusion that the recovered agricultural was purchased by the petitioner-accused for the purpose of, sale and thus it was the breach of Part- 3(1) of Rajasthan Trade Articles, Licensing and Control Order, 1980 and convicted him for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment dated 25.06.1996. 7. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner-accused has preferred this revision petition, which was admitted for hearing by this court vide order dated 01.07.1996 and notice was issued to the respondent-State and record of the court below was called for. 8. On 13.03.2015, an application was preferred by the petitioner-accused for placing on record certain documents, copy of which was supplied to the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. By this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods seized from the petitioner-accused were released in his favour under the provisions of Section 6A of the Act vide order dated 28.09.2002, passed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2001, by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh. The certified copy of the order was submitted before the State Authorities for taking refund of the goods sold, therefore, the petitioner-accused is having the certified copy of that order. The petitioner filed an application for taking certified copy of the said order but the application was rejected on the ground that the record had already been weeded out. A certified copy of the copying application has been filed as Annex.A/2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that as the goods were already sold by the respondent-State, therefore, the amount realised from the sale of goods was refunded to the petitioner-accused. A copy of the refund receipt was also filed as Annex.A/3. Lastly, it was prayed that the application may be allowed and the documents filed by the petitioner-accused may be taken on record as the same are relevant and came into existence after the passing of the impugned judgment. 10. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute these facts. Rather, he himself placed on record a letter issued by the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh, dated 19.02.2015 addressed to Shri Lekhram Vishnoi, Government Advocate, Rajashtan High Court, Jodhpur, wherefrom it reveals that vide judgment dated 28.09.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/2001, the amount of seized food- grains was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner-accused. 11. 11. Since the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner-accused are in the form of judgment and order of the court and for which the learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute, rather, he supported the documents and since their genuineness Is not disputed, therefore, for the just decision of the case, this application Is allowed and the documents are ordered to be taken on record and considered. 12. I have heard Mr. Manish Shlshodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. LR Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor on the revision petition. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parallel proceedings of confiscation of the seized food- grains was initiated under Section 6A of the Act against the petitioner-accused by the Collector and the Collector ordered to confiscate the seized food-gralns against which appeal was preferred by the petitioner-accused, which was heard and decided by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 28.09.2002 In Criminal Appeal No.28/2001, whereby the learned court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order of the learned Collector, Chittorgarh dated 24.09.1993 and ordered to release the 30 quintals wheat and 30 quintals of Barley to the petitioner-accused or their value, if the same was sold. He submitted that the learned appellate court, in the judgment dated 28.09.2002, observed as under:- " gLrxr izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ftUl xsgwa o tkS izkFkhZ dh d`f"k dh Hkwfe dh mit gS vkSj izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ O;kikj ;k dz; fodz; dk O;olk; ugha djrk gks] ,slh dksbZ lk{; vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls miyC/k ugha djk;h xbZ gSA mDr ftUl izkFkhZ ds vkoklh; Hkou ls lacaf/kr }kjk tCr dh x;h ftldks U;k;ky; us vius lEcfU/kr mDr ftUl dks izkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ djus dk vkns'k fn;k ysfdu cM+h gh foMEcuk dh fLFkfr gS fd mDr eky dks lEcfU/kr jln vf/kdkjh o fujh{kd dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh us iqu% vfHkxzfgr dj fy;kA fo}ku ftyk DysDVj us vius vkyksP; fu.kZ; }kjk ftUl tIr ljdkj djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku ftyk DysDVj fpRrksM+x<+ dk mDr vkns'k i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds izfrdwy gksus ds lkFk lkFk lEcfU/kr vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha fd, tkus ls mDr lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ gksdj fo}ku ftyk DysDVj fpRrksM+x<+ dk mDr vkyksP; vkns'k o fu.kZ; fuLrj.kh; gSA " 14. He submitted that the judgment of the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned appellate court in the appeal proceedings of the proceeding under Section 6A of the Act are contradictory. On the one hand, the learned trial court, convicted the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act for the breach of the provisions of Part-3(1) of Rajasthan Trade Articles, Licensing and Control Order, 1980 and on the other hand, the learned appellate court, In the proceeding under Section 6A of the act, allowed the appeal and released the goods in favour of the petitioner and found no contravention and observed that the seized articles were agricultural produce of the petitioner-accused. He further submitted that no independent witness supported the prosecution case. Only Enforcement Inspector and the Investigating Officer supported the prosecution case, who are interested witnesses and there is no evidence regarding purchase of the agricultural produce from the agriculturists. It was also submitted that confessional statement of the petitioner-accused is also not admissible In evidence since . the same was given under pressure. Further, there is no disclosure that from where the agricultural produce was purchased and to whom the same was to be sold. In absence of It, It cannot be relied upon. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment but fairly admitted that the judgment of the appellate court dated 28.09.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, Camp Chittorgarh is contradictory to the impugned order and the price of the seized food-grains was refunded to the petitioner-accused. He also admitted that the judgment of the appellate court dated 28.09.2002 attained finality. 16. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 17. Before parting with the order, I deem It appropriate to go through the evidence led before the learned trial court. 18. Yogendra Singh (PW-1), in his statement deposed that on 26.09.1992, he was posted as Enforcement Inspector in the Supply Office, Chittorgarh. On that day, with the staff of Krishi Upaj Mandi and its Secretary, he went to the house of Shyamlal situated at Bassi. The house was identified by the accused Shyamlal himself as his own house. On search, 220-225 bags of agricultural produce, like Wheat, Gram Pulse etc. were found. On that day, with the staff of Krishi Upaj Mandi and its Secretary, he went to the house of Shyamlal situated at Bassi. The house was identified by the accused Shyamlal himself as his own house. On search, 220-225 bags of agricultural produce, like Wheat, Gram Pulse etc. were found. On being asked, accused Shyamlal stated that some of the bags were of his own agricultural produce and some were purchased from nearby agriculturists and that he does the business of wheat for the last 2-3 years. In cross-examination, he admitted that the house is joint property of four brothers and accused did not tell him that his agricultural produce was not sold out. It was denied by the witness that the accused told him that he purchased the food-grains from agriculturists. This witness denied the fact that the petitioner stated in his statement that he did not make any confession before him to the effect that he purchased the food-grains from other agriculturists for the purpose of business. 19. Ashok Kumar Chokhra (PW-2), in his statement deposed that on 26.09.1992, he was posted as LDC In the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. On that day, he went to the village Bassi with Gaurl Shanker Pallwal, the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti with other staff on the complaint against Shyamlal and Devilal. The accused Shyamlal was found on the place and thereafter, after taking information about his business, his house was searched on which 229 bags of Wheat, Gram Pulse, Mustard etc. were found, for which accused claimed that some were his agricultural produce and some were purchased from the other agriculturists. It was also stated by him that no license for trade was found from the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused was taken from his shop of clothes where the accused stated that his main business is of clothes and also stated that the foodgrains recovered from his house is of his own agricultural produce and was purchased also. 20. Balmukund (PW-3) was declared hostile. He, in his statement deposed that he knew Shyamlal and when the house of the accused was searched, he was not there. However, he admitted his signatures on Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/5. In cross-examination he stated that it is true that the accused did not do the business of selling foodgrains. 20. Balmukund (PW-3) was declared hostile. He, in his statement deposed that he knew Shyamlal and when the house of the accused was searched, he was not there. However, he admitted his signatures on Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/5. In cross-examination he stated that it is true that the accused did not do the business of selling foodgrains. He was a cloth merchant and father of the accused are four brothers and the house is their joint property and they keep their agricultural produce in their house. 21. Nandkishore Kothari (PW-4) also declared hostile. He in his statement stated that he knew the accused and he was there when the house of the accused was searched. It was stated that when the agricultural produce were seized, the accused told that it was his agricultural produce. 22. Ramswaroop (PW-5) was also declared hostile. He stated that the accused is his nephew and the house and agriculture is joint and when the search was made, he was not there. The agricultural produce recovered were of the accused Shyamlal. In cross-examination he stated that the house is joint property of four brothers and the accused did not do the business of food-grains. 23. Kanhaiyalal (PW-6) Is the investigating officer, who stated about the investigation after receiving the report (Ex.P/3) from Yogendra Singh. 24. Gauri Shanker Paliwal (PW-7), in his statement deposed that on 26.09.1992, he was posted as Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chittorgarh. On that day, he received an information that the accused was doing the business of agricultural produce for the last 2-3 years but he was not a licensee of the Samiti. On the said information, he with his staff reached the house of the accused, where accused Shyamlal was there and on search 220 bags of Wheat, Gram Pulse, Fenugreek, Lentil Pulse etc. were found weighing about 119 quintals. The accused stated that some of the bags were of his agricultural produce and some were purchased from the other agriculturists for the purpose of sale but he could not produce any license, therefore, the said agricultural produce were seized. In cross- examination, he stated that accused Shyamlal deals in the business of clothes. He felt ignorance about the joint property of the petitioner-accused and his brothers. He admitted that he did not inform the accused that whatever he will state before him, will be read against him. 25. In cross- examination, he stated that accused Shyamlal deals in the business of clothes. He felt ignorance about the joint property of the petitioner-accused and his brothers. He admitted that he did not inform the accused that whatever he will state before him, will be read against him. 25. Bardhi Chand (DW-1) in his statement deposed that father of the petitioner are four brothers and the house is their joint property. The agricultural land of his father is at Sau Nagar and stated that he ploughed wheat in their agricultural field and brought 27 bags of wheat. 26. Badrilal (DW-2) also corroborated the statement of Bardhi Chand (DW-1). 27. Ramnivas (DW-3) In his statement stated that they are four brothers and the petitioner Shyamlal is his only son having cloth shop only. He further stated that he is having agricultural land at Bassi, Sau Nagar and Torpiya. He proved the revenue record of his agricultural land. 28. From the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that it is not disputed that 229 bags of food-grains were seized form the house of the petitioner-accused. As per the prosecution, the house belong to the petitioner-accused but from the evidence adduced by the defence and prosecution, though no title-deed was produced but from the statements, it reveals that it is joint property of four brothers of petitioner's father and it also reveals that father of petitioner is having agricultural land from where the agricultural produce was brought and it was relied by the learned appellate in Criminal Appeal No.28/2001. It Is true that there Is admission of the petitioner-accused in Ex.P/1 that out of the seized food- grains, 85 bags were of his own agricultural produce and rest was purchased and retained for the purpose of sale and no account was maintained for that. The said admission is in search memo. No separate statement of petitioner was recorded and the same was refuted by the petitioner when he was examined under section 313 Cr.RC. Further, when such fact was admitted by the accused before the Seizure Officer, then the accused should have been asked that from whom he purchased and the persons who sold the same, should have also been examined but the prosecution has failed to investigate this fact. On the other hand, the defence witnesses clearly stated that this is the agricultural produce of their own agricultural land. 29. On the other hand, the defence witnesses clearly stated that this is the agricultural produce of their own agricultural land. 29. Section 2(e) of The Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980 reads as under:- (e) 'dealer' means a person, a firm, an association of persons or a cooperative society other than a National and State level J Co-operative society, engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any trade article whether or not In conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or agent but does not include:- (i) a person who holds or is in possession of agricultural land any : tenure or any capacity and on which he raises or has raised crop of food-grains, oilseeds or whole pulses; (ii) a manufacturer of sugar, gur and khandsari; (iii) a producer of pulses and edible oil." 30. As per the proviso to Section 3 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980, no license shall be required for a dealer who stores for sale at any one time the trade articles, in quantities net exceeding the limits as may be prescribed by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government for any trade article from time to time. 31. From the perusal of the above, the prosecution has to prove the quantity minimum prescribed by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government for any trade article, which can be retained without license. From the perusal of the record of the trial court, it reveals that no such order regarding quantity of prescribed limit fixed by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government for any trade article was proved before the trial court. In absence of that, mere possession of quantity of food-grain recovered from the petitioner-accused, for which the appellate court, in the proceeding of appeal under section 6A of the Act observed that the seized wheat and barley belongs to the agricultural land of the petitioner and he was not involved in the business thereof, which has attained finality, cannot lead to the effect that there was any breach of Part-3(1) of the Rajasthan Trade (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980. 32. 32. In view of the above, this revision petition deserves to be allowed, which Is hereby allowed and the Impugned judgment dated 25.06.1996, passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted from the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act. 33. The petitioner-accused is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 34. Record of the trial court be returned with a copy of this order forthwith. *******