JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Clause 3 of the Orissa Food grains Dealer to Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default, to simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The charge against the Petitioner was that 22 quintals of rice contained in 23 bags were recovered from the shop of the Petitioner and though a dealer he had no licence for storing rice for sale. The defence was one of denial. After discussion of the evidence the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case. Mr. Murty does not challenge the finding of fact. 3. The only contention urged by Mr. Murty is that though the Petitioner stored 22 quintals of rice for sale, he was not a dealer so as to procure a licence for storage of rice for sale on a single occasion. To appreciate this contention, the relevant law on the point may be examined. 4. Clause 2(a) of the Order defines "dealer" 'dealer' means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for the sale of any one of the food grains in quantity of ten quintals or more at anyone time or in quantity of twenty-five quintals or more of all food grains taken together, but does not include (i) a cultivator who does not engage in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of food grains, or (ii) a person dealing with food grains on Government account. Under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Order, no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. Sub-clause (2) lays down that for the purpose of Clause 3, any person who stores any food grains in quantity of ten quintals or more of any of the food grains twenty-five quintals of all food grains taken together at anyone time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the food grains for the purpose of sale. Thus a presumption is invoked against a person storing more than the prescribed quantity that it is for said. 5. Thus a presumption is invoked against a person storing more than the prescribed quantity that it is for said. 5. Admittedly the Petitioner stored 22 quintals of rice which was more than ten quintals. Rice is one of the food grains contemplated under the Order. Under the legal presumption, the Petitioner mast be deemed to have stored for the purpose of sale. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The onus is on the Petitioner to prove the contrary which be has failed to discharge by adducing reliable evidence. The presumption stands unrebutted. It is not disputed that the Petitioner has no licence. The question is whether the Petitioner has committed an offence u/s 7 of the Act on the finding that without a licence he stored more than the requisite quantity of food grains. If he is a dealer, he is liable to punishment, otherwise not. 6. Whether the Petitioner was a dealer or not would depend upon the further finding whether he was engaged in the business" of storage for sale of rice. On identical provisions in the Manipur Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order, it was held in Manipur Administration Vs. M. Nila Chandra Singh that the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. It is not a single casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase or storage that would make a person dealer. It must be shown that there is a sort of continuity of one or the other of the said transactions. On this test, the prosecution has failed to establish that the Petitioner was a dealer. Only a single transaction of storage for sale of food grains has been proved by the prosecution. The same view has been taken by this Court in Massala Subba Rao v. State 31 C.L.T. 735. 7. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner are set aside. Fines, if paid be refunded. The rice seized from the Petitioner be returned back to him. If the rice has been disposed of, the value thereof be paid to the Petitioner. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed