ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The Applicant is a grain-dealer in the Township of Jawan in the District of Aligarh. By judgment and order dated 23-3-1965 the Magistrate had convicted him u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced him to undergo one years R.I. for the breach of Clause 3(1) of the UP Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 which runs as under: No person shall carry on business as a dealer or Commission Agent except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licencing authority. He was further convicted u/s 7(1)(a)(i) of the same Act and was sentenced to undergo 3 months' R.I. Both the sentences were made concurrent. Over and above, the price of 31 quintals of wheat recovered from him, amounting to Rs. 1200/- was also forfeited to the State. 2. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the Applicant u/s 7(1)(a)(i) but maintained his conviction and sentence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii). Thus we are no longer concerned with the allegations relating to the charge of which he has already been acquitted. In other words we have now to determine whether the Applicant was carrying on the business of selling wheat without a licence. 3. In appeal it was found that as far back as 29-11-1963 the Applicant had deposited the requisite licence fee for renewal of his licence by means of treasury challan and receipt (paper No. 47c) while it was on 26-7-1964 i.e. 8 months later that he was found selling wheat without licence. The argument is that the default was on the part of the Licensing Authority for not issuing the requisite licence with promptitude. It was open to the Licensing Authority either to refuse to renew the licence or renew it but if the authority stood over the matter for about 8 months, no mens rea can be attached to the dealer in carrying on sales during the intervening period between the deposit of licence fee and the actual delivery of the licence. After all a business man who has been carrying on wheat trade, under a licence and has already applied for renewal of licence, on payment of requisite fee, cannot wait limitlessly for the grant of licence and stop his running business in the meantime or to discontinue his well established business. After all a business man who has been carrying on wheat trade, under a licence and has already applied for renewal of licence, on payment of requisite fee, cannot wait limitlessly for the grant of licence and stop his running business in the meantime or to discontinue his well established business. In such circumstances, he would obviously not act with guilty mind but only be deemed to be acting bonafide and therefore not liable for the technical breach of the rule. 4. A somewhat similar matter was considered in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 . In that case the accused was a dealer in foodgrains and had made an application for a licence under the Licensing Order prevailing in Madhya Pradesh and had deposited the rquisite licence fee. There was, however, no intimation to him that his application had been rejected. The accused continued dealing in foodgrains meanwhile. On being checked by the Food Inspector, he was found to have been selling foodgrains without licence. He was therefore prosecuted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. But he was acquitted by the Magistrate on the ground that he had no guilty mind however, on appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicted him. The convict then went to the Supreme Court, which held: The accused stored the goods under a bonafide impression that the licence in regard to which he had made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. The fact that the Licensing authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application confirmed the accused's belief. On that belief he proceeded to store the foodgrains by sending the relevant returns to the authority concerned. It was therefore a storage of foodgrains within the prescribed limits under a bonafide belief that he could legally do so. He did not, therefore, intentionally contravene the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the light of the principle evolved in the above case I think the Applicant is entitled to acquittal, inasmuch as he was also acting bonafide during the intervening period and had also applied for the renewal of his licence and had further deposited the licence fee 8 months ago. Accordingly I allow the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant. The amount of Rs. Accordingly I allow the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant. The amount of Rs. 1200/- which had been forfeited shall also be paid back to him.