B.K. Ray, J. - (1.)A prosecution report was made against opposite parties alleging that they having carried more than the permissible quantity of rice from the district of Sambalpur to that of Dhenkanal in a single conveyance without a permit had contravened the provisions of Sub -clause (2) of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice (Control on Inter -district Movement) Order, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Order') issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the - 'Act') and thereby made themselves liable to punishment under Section 7(ii) of the Act. Upon this report the opp. parties were tried in the Court of the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol, found guilty, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - each, in default to rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. As substantive punishment is compulsory under Section 7 of the Act and as the opp. parties after having been found guilty under Section 7 of the Act were let off with a fine of Rs. 200/ - each only, the present revision has been started on Court's own motion.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution as made out in the trial Court against the opp. parties is as follows: At about 4. 00 a. m. on 24 -9 -1974 a jeep bearing O.R.S. 3181 with trailer O.R.C. 182 was found coming from Sambalpur side and proceeding to Dhenkanal. The vehicle was stopped and checked by the Civil Supplies staff. The same was found carrying 11 bags of M.B. coarse rice loaded in the trailer, as per the statement of Dulamoni Sahu (opp. party No. 1), the owner of the vehicle, and of Sadananda Swain (opp. party No. 2), the driver, both of whom were in the vehicle which was proceeding to Handapa in Dhenkanal district. The opp. parties further admitted that they had purchased the rice from one Ganesh of Dhanupali of Sambalpur district. The vehicle with the 11 bags of rice it was carrying was seized and brought to the place of Shri L.N. Agarwalla, business man of Rairakhol, for weighment. The stock was weighed in the presence of witnesses and was found to be A weighing 10. 87 quintals of rice including the gunny bags. On these allegations it was said that the opp. parties had contravened Sub -clause (2) of Clause 3 of the Order.
On the prosecution report being submitted on the above allegations the opp. parties were produced in the trial Court and the substance of the prosecution case constituting the offence under Section 7 of the Act was explained to them. The opp. parties admitted their guilt. It was upon this admission the trial Court found the opposite parties guilty and punished them as mentioned above.

(3.)THE procedure adopted in the trial Court in the trial of the opp. parties was one of summary in nature as provided under Section 262, Criminal Procedure Code. It is not disputed before me that the learned Magistrate who tried the opposite parties had not been invested with powers to try the opposite parties in a summary way as provided in the said section. Thus, there can be no objection to the procedure adopted in the trial Court.