Mehrotra, J.

[1] These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh against the respondent Sheo Prasad Jaiswal, alleged to be the proprietor of the Hindustan Oil Mills, Vidyapith Road, Banaras against an order of the Sessions Judge of Banaras acquitting him of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 for contravention of the conditions of the licence granted to the Hindustan Oil Mills, Banaras under the U.P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds Products' Control Order, 1945.

[2] The Magistrate convicted him under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him to pay a fine of RS. 5,000/- in each of these cases and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal the conviction was set aside by the Sessions Judge.

[3] The prosecution case is that the Hindustan Oil Mills, Banaras holds a B Class licence. The respondent, Sheo Prasad Jaiswal is its sole proprietor and, according to the conditions of the licence, the firm was bound to maintain a register in English, Hindi and Urdu showing separately the transaction in each kind of oilseed or their products in which it was dealing specifying correctly the opening balance on each day, the quantities received during each day and the quantities sold locally each day and also the quantities sold outside the controlled oilseeds and oil markets.

The licensee was further bound to furnish correctly such information as might be demanded from it by the Regional Food Controller or by any other person authorised by him in this behalf. The licensee was asked to submit correct fortnightly statements of the stocks received by it and as the returns submitted by the licensee were incorrect, the condition of the licence was contravened.

[4] In Appeal No. 404 of 1952 the allegation of the prosecution is that the firm had received 675 maunds of linseed on 15-4-1946, 294 maunds and 30 seers of linseed on 22-4-1946 and 270 maunds of linseed on 9-5-1946 but their receipts were not shown in the fortnightly statements ending on 15-4-1943, 30-4-194G and 15-5-1946, submitted by the firm to the Regional Food Controller, Banaras.

In Appeal No. 411 of 1952 the allegation of the prosecution is that the firm had received 267 maunds of linseed on 27-7-1946, 540 maunds of linseed on 8-3-1946, and 1092 maunds of linseed on 14-8-1946 but none of these receipts were shown in the fortnightly statements ending on 31-7-1946 and 15-8-1946 given by the firm in response to the order of the Regional Food Controller.

In Appeal No. 412 of 1952, the charge was that the firm had received 297 maunds of linseed on 3-6-1946 and 6b4 maunds 30 seers of linseed on 25-6-1946 but they were not shown in the fortnightly statements ending on 15-6-1945 and 30-6-1946. The charge against the opposite party was that he, being the sole proprietor of the Hindustan Oil Mills, Banaras, which held a B class licence, violated condition 3 of the licence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 read With Sections 8, 9, 10 and 17 of Act 24 of 1946.

Similar charges were framed in other cases also which are the subject-matter of the connected appeals. The Magistrate, after considering the evidence and the points of law raised by the opposite party, found him guilty of an offence under Section 7/10 of Act 24 of 1946 and convicted him for the same and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of these cases and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

[5] One Gaya Prasad was a co-accused in the ease but he died during the pendency of the trial.

[6] The defence taken by the respondent was that he knew nothing about the alleged contravention as he is a mere sleeping partner of 12 annas and Gaya Prasad was working partner of 4 annas share in the firm. The opposite party mostly resided at Calcutta and looked after his business there as his father had become very old and he was the only son.

Gaya Prasad, who was a co-a