Judgment 1. The petitioner has been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo rigorous-imprisonment for a further period of fourteen days, by the Munsif-Magistrate exercising summary power, Jamshedpur. The prosecution case is that on the 15th October, 1964, P. W. 2 Ram Chandra Ram, who is a Supply Inspector at Jamshedpur, visited a foodgrain shop, of which the licence stands in the name of the petitioners-father, Baldeo Maharaj, along with a Magistrate (P. W. 1), Sri B. P. Jha. He found that the present petitioner was ruuning the shop inquestion, and on examining the registers it was found that neither the closing balance of the 14th October, 1964 nor the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 had been entered into the stock book and account books. He further found ten bags of besan in the shop in excess of the stock as entered in the stock register. Thereafter, the prosecution report was filed by the Inspector and cognizance was taken on the basic thereof. 2. The defence of the petitioner was that the besan in question was not of gram, and, as such no offence was committed so far as the aforesaid ten bags of besan were concerned. His case further was that as the licence for the shop stood in the name of his father, he could not be prosecuted for the alleged offence. The Magistrate held that the ten bags of besan were gram besan, and, as such, the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 were applicable to the same also. He further accepted the. prosecution case about the failure to make entries of the closing balance of the 14th October, 1964 and the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 in the stock and other registers.The contention of non-liability of the petitioner for the offences in question on account of the licence being in the name of his father was rejected on the finding that the petitioner was acting in the shop on behalf of his father. On the aforesaid findings, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. On the aforesaid findings, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The petitioner thereafter moved the Sessions Judge against this order, but his petition was rejected as per order passed by the Sessions Judge dated the 27th March, 1965, and, thereafter, the present petition in revision has been filed. 3. The fact that the Supply Inspector (P. W. 2) and the Magistrate (P. W. 1) had visited the shop in question on the 16th of October, 1964 And that at that time there was no entry in the stock and other registers with respect to the closing balance el the 14th, October, 1964 and the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 was not disputed before me, and the further fact that these officers found ten bags of besan in excess of the entries made in the stock register is also not disputed. It was, however, contended that these ten bags of besan were not of gram but were of peas, and, as such, these do not come within the purview of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. Although in the complaint petition filed by the Supply Inspector, the article in question is described as besan, this witness has stated in his evidence in court that the besan was of gram. His evidence further shows that these ten bags of besan were seized and sealed by him and thereafter made over to the present petitioner himself for custody. In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any cogent reason for disbelieving his evidence that the besan in question was gram besan. Had it not been so, the petitioner, could have easily confronted the witness (P. W 2) by showing that it was not gram besan by production of any of the bags which were in the custody of the petitioner himself. The contention that the besan in question was not the gram besan and as such the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, were not applicable with respect to these bags of Began is thus quite untenable. The contention that the besan in question was not the gram besan and as such the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, were not applicable with respect to these bags of Began is thus quite untenable. It was next contended that as the complaint petition did not disclose that the besan was gram besan, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the case so far; as it related to the ten bags of besan as under suit of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955, a Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a public servant. it is no doubt true that the besan in question was not described in the complaint petition as gram began; but, as pointed out by the learned Magistrate, in common parlance, the word besan denotes gram besan and not the besan of peas or of any other grain. Hence, the use of the word besan in the complaint petition implied that it was gram besan, and, as such, the contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the case with respect to the ten bags of began, as they were not specifically described as gram besan in the complaint petition, is quite untenable. 4. In view of the findings with regard to the omission to make entries with respect to the closing balance of the 14th October, 1964 and the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 and the detection of ten bags of gram besan in excess of the stock shown in the stock register, there cannot be any doubt that there has been a violation of the provisions of the terms of the licence issued under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and, thereby there has been a violation of the provisions of S. 7 of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and thus the offence is punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The next question, for determination is whether the present petitioner can be held liable for these offences as the licence for the shop in question admittedly stood in the name of his father and not in his name. The next question, for determination is whether the present petitioner can be held liable for these offences as the licence for the shop in question admittedly stood in the name of his father and not in his name. Reference may be made in this connection to the provisions of S. 7 of the aforesaid Licensing Order: "No holder of a licence issued under this Order or his agent or servant of any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms and conditions of the licence and if any such holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms or conditions, then, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of his licensing authority: * * * * It was contended by Mrs. Las on the basis of the provisions of this section that the licensee alone is liable for the contravention of the terms of the licence and not anybody else. This section, however, does not purport to lay down as to who will be liable to be punished for violation of any of the terms and conditions of the licence: on the contrary, it provides that neither the holder of a licence nor his agent or servant nor any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms and condition of the licence; and, as regards to the question as to who will be liable to be penalised for this violation, reference has to be made to S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which lays down that any person who contravenes any order made under S. 3 he shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of this section. Thus, under the terms of S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, any person who contravenes an order under S. 3 of this Act is liable to be punished under this section. Thus, under the terms of S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, any person who contravenes an order under S. 3 of this Act is liable to be punished under this section. As mentioned above, S. 7 of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order provides that neither the holder of the licence nor his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms and conditions of the licence; and, it is quite apparent that when this section is read along with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, any person whether he is a holder of the licence or his agent or servant or is a person acting on his behalf is liable to be punished under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act if the contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence has been made by that person. The latter part of S. 7 of the Licensing Order provides for the cancellation of the licence in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed upon the licence-holder, but that does not imply that the other persons who may have contravened the terms and conditions of the licence are not liable to be punished for such contravention. I am, therefore, quite unable to accept the contention that the licencee alone and not his servant or agent or any person acting on his behalf is liable to be punished for violating the terms and conditions of the licence even if the violation were made by such a person. In the present case, the evidence, as discussed by the Magistrate, shows that the present petitioner was the only person present at the shop and he had been acting on behalf of his father, and, as such, he has been rightly convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for the aforesaid violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. 5. The only other point which arises for consideration is the question of sentence. The sentence as imposed by the Magistrate, however, appears to be very lenient and does not call for any further reduction. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.