Mere storage of essential commodities, without evidence of continuity of transactions, is not sufficient to establish that a person is carrying on business as a dealer within the meaning of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1971.

Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. :- The short question of law that falls for determination in this Rule is whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the West Bengal. Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The question arises in this way.

2. On may 25, 1973 some officers of the District Engorgement Branch raided the godown of the petitioner and found a stock of 20 quintals of pulses (Maskalat) in 20 gunny bags but no list indicating the opening stock of such commodity and retail selling price thereof was displayed as required under paragraph 3 of the Order. The petitioner, on demand, also failed to produce books of accounts in respect of the said commodity. A prosecution was launched against him under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules 1971 for violating the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Order. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Cooch Behar, who tried the case, found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one months and a fine of Rs. 200 in default to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more. The petitioner therefore moved this court and obtained the present Rule.

3. Mr. Nandi, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, contended that even if the prosecution case was accepted in its entirety it could not be said that the petitioner was a dealer within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the Order so as to cast upon him a liability to display the list of pulses stocked by him under paragraph 3 of the Order as the obligation thereunder is of a dealer of essential commodities. Relying upon the judgement of the supreme court in the case of Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1533 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 465) Mr. Nandi submitted that from mere find of 20 quintals of pulses an inference of carrying on business could not be drawn so as to bring the petitioner within the mischief of a dealer under paragraph 2(a) of the Order.

4. To appreciate the contention of Mr. Nandi it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Order. Paragraph 2(a) defines "dealer" to mean any person carrying on business of selling of any essential commodity and includes a producer, importer, wholesaler or retailer, Essential commodity has been defined in the order to mean any commodity of daily need specified in the schedule to the Order Pulses were not in the original schedule but were include by a second amendment of the Order 1972. Paragraph 3 enjoins that every dealer of essential commodities shall display prominently in the shops of show room a list indicting the opening stock of essential commodities and retail selling prices thereof each day and indicate on each unit of item of the said commodities the sale price by having the sale price either printed on the commodity or on the container or packet thereof or by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a lable on such commodity. The question whether shop or show room includes a godown need not detain us as both the Courts below on whom rested the duty of investigating into the facts found on consideration of the evidence and the materials on record, that the pulses were stored in the shop room of the petitioner and for our present purposes we accept that concurrent finding. the Controversy therefore, is confined to the question whether find of 20 quintals of pulses in the shop would justify an inference that the petitioner was carrying on business in pulses so as to make him a dealer within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the Order.

5. To answer this question we may now profitably refer to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Manipur Administration (1964 (2) Cri LJ 465) (supra). In that case the allegation against the accused was that he stored 178 maunds of paddy in his godown in contravention of clause 3(2) of the Manipur Food Grains Dealers Licencing Order 1958 issued under the Essentia