comm()dities underthe public distributionsystem or other(iovernmentschemes at any level right frc m the Food C)c,rporationof India godown to the fair pric: shop point, till the scheduledcommodity reachesthe intend,:d benehciary. Fromtheunequivocal plain ianguage of thisprovision,it isclear that itgets attracted when thereis interruption of food grains from the stage of FCIgodown tillitreachesthe end beneli<:iary i.e.,cardholders.The provision do(rs not comprrlhend any activityrelating toanycom rrodity falling under the ControlOrder, 2008 once itr:aches lhe cardholder. There is nowhisper either .nthe detent.on order or in thegrounds of detentionthat any of the detenus is interruptingthe smooth functior-ring of the sc eeduled commoditiesfrom the FCI godowrLpornt till it reaches intended benehciary.On the contrary, the whole allcgation against thedetenusis that they have been ;rltrchasing the PDS rice fromthe cardholders. Thcrefcre, this activity of the detenuscomplete.y falls outsid,: Clause 17(A) of theControl Order, 2008.Once there is no prohibition on suchactivity either unrler the 1995 Act or under the Control Order,2008which undisJrtttedly is the only Orderthat governsdistribution ald ccrntrol of rice meanl forpublic distribution system, the d,:tenus cannot beaccusedofcommittir.gany offence. As the respondentsfailed to show that the d.etenus have contravened theprovisionsof an1'other Control Order framed underSection3 of thel9()5 Act, the alleged activities of the detenus are notliable brany penal action. Once their activities do not constitute an
