Merely possessing foodgrains without evidence of engaging in business does not constitute an offence under the Essential Commodities Act.

1. This is a reference under S.438, CrPC made by the learned. Sessions Judge, Goalpara with recommendation for setting aside the impugned order and for return of paddy or the sale price thereof to the accused - petitioner.

2. The petitioner's shop at Sukchar was searched by the Supply Inspector on 12-11-65 and found a stock of 58 bags of Ahu paddy weighing 34.80 quintals and the paddy was seized. The accused - petitioner could not produce any license for dealing in paddy as required under Clause 3 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Assam O.1961'). The Supply Inspector submitted an offence report against the petitioner with necessary sanction for prosecution under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of the said Clause of the Assam O.1961. The case was tried summarily by the learned Magistrate as provided in S.12A of the , 1955.

3. The prosecution examined three witnesses in the case including the Supply Inspector. The defence did not deny the fact that 58 bags of paddy were found in his possession by the Supply Inspector. The contention of the accused - petitioner was that prior to the seizure of paddy, on a bazar day, some persons numbering about 22 who brought paddy to Sukchar bazar for sale were unable to dispose of the same and so they left the paddy at his godown to be lifted later on and that the paddy did not belong to the petitioner in support of his contention the petitioner examined one witness.

4. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Magistrate found that the accused stored the paddy for sale in his shop in violation of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Assam O.1961 and accordingly he convicted the accused under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rupees 500/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for another month. The seized paddy was also confiscated. As the order of the learned Magistrate was not appealable as provided under sub-section (3) of S.12A of the aforesaid Act. the accused petitioner moved a revision petition under S.435, CrPC before the Sessions Judge, who has referred the case as stated above.

5. The learned Courts below have found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the case proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12-11-65 the shop of the accused was searched by the Supply Inspector P. W. 3 and on such search 58 bags of paddy weighing 38.80 quintals of paddy were found in his possession.
As stated hereinbefore the accused also admitted possession of the seized paddy.

6. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether mere possession of paddy in question was sufficient to bring home the offence under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence that the accused was ever seen dealing in paddy in his shop. On the other hand, the Supply Inspector P. W. 3 stated that he had no information if the accused dealt in rice or paddy. The accused was charged for violation of Clause 3 of the Assam O.1961 which runs as follows:
"3. Dealings to be licensed: No person shall engage in any business which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale of any foodgrains in wholesale quantities, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued under this Order:
Provided that nothing in this clause in so far as sale or storage for sale of food - grains is concerned, shall apply to a producer.
Explanation: - The expression "purchase or sale in wholesale quantities" means the purchase or sale in quantities ex