Judgment S.P.Singh, J. 1. This application in revision has been directed against an order dated the 14th of February, 1968, passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Bhabua directing the sale of certain seized quantity of food grains belonging to petitioner No. 1 in a case instituted under section 7 read with section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner it is necessary to state a few facts. Petitioner No. 1 Mangal Singh is the proprietor of a Him styled "Shivadutt Singh Babban Singh doing business at Mohania in the district of Shahabad as food-grains dealer and he holds a licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. Petitioners 2, 8 and 4 are his relations whereas petitioner No. 5 is his munib. On the 26th November, 1965, Slid S, Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti .smuggling) accompanied by Shri S. S. Shastri, a Magistrate and Supply Officer, inspected the gola of petitioner No. 1 and found more than 271 quintals of different varieties of food-grains in excess of the quantity shown in the stock register. They sealed the stock and a case was instituted at the Mohania Police station on the same day at 9.45 P. M. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-smuggling). Side by side the Magistrate Mr. Shastri submitted a report of this fact to the Subdivisional Magistrate, Bhabua. On receipt of the report, the Subdivisional Magistrate directed the actual verification of the stock by the Magistrate and it was found that the stock of various food-grains, found in excess was to the extent of 271 quintals and odd. During the pendency of the case the petitioners came to this Court in the present revision in February, 1966 and got the proceedings stayed. The stock of foodgrains which had been seized by the officers concerned were in the meantime, released to the petitioners in March 1966 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the officer in-charge of Mohania Police station in June, 1966 against petitioners Nos. 1 and 5. That being so, petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are not now concerned with the proceeding in question. The subdivisional Magistrate, however, has not taken any step in the case up till now on account of the order of stay passed by this Court in this revision. 1 and 5. That being so, petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are not now concerned with the proceeding in question. The subdivisional Magistrate, however, has not taken any step in the case up till now on account of the order of stay passed by this Court in this revision. Even though the seized stock has been released to the petitioner it is contended on their behalf that the proceeding should be quashed. 3. Mrs. Dharamsheela Lall, appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the excess stock of foodgrains found in the premises of the cola belonged to different small dealers who had kept that stock there temporarily and a note to this effect had been made in the remarks column of the stock register but the Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not take notice of this valid explanation and instead prosecuted the petitioners on insufficient grounds. Mrs. Lalls argument is that before the initiation of a proceeding in such a case, it is incumbent upon the inspecting or prosecuting officer to take into account any explanation offered by the dealer and the failure on the part at the officer to do so renders the proceeding invalid. In support of her contention Mrs. Lall has reiied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Brij Be had Lal V/s. A. Mukherjee, 1986 BLJR 432. The following observations made in the case are important :- -"The terms of the license require completion of the accounts by a licences unless prevented by reasonable cause. This opportunity has indeed to be given to a licencee by inspecting officer himself and not that such a plea would be open (sic) to a licensee only in court. The term is very clear and it occurs in the form of the licence itself. It is, therefore, for the inspecting authority to get satisfied on taking explanation from the licencee as to the cause for the non-completion of the daily accounts, and any report, in absence of such an opportunity being given to the licencee, can well be treated as a denial of natural justice. The report of the inspecting officer for launching a prosecution against a licencee must be a proper report. The report of the inspecting officer for launching a prosecution against a licencee must be a proper report. The inspecting Officer did not give an opportunity to the licencee to explain for the non-completion of the accounts and the denial of such an opportunity would render the report invalid, and, no court should take cognizance on such an incomplete report. Such being the position, the taking of cognizance of the offence by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate if it is treated as validly taking the cognizance, was without any proper report and, therefore, the whole proceeding is vitiated." 4. We have now to see how far the above observations apply to the facts of the present case and ff so, whether these observations are strictly in conformity with the statutory provisions having a bearing on the question raised. A foodgrain licence is issued to a dealer in form B prescribed under Clause 4 (2) of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers" Licensing Order, 1963. This licensing order was issued under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . Form B of the licence consists of several Paragraphs. Paragraph 3 (d) (ii) of the form of licence reads as follows :- - - "3. The licensee shall, except when specially exempted by the State Government or by the licensing authority in this behalf, maintain a register of daily accounts for each of the food-grain, mentioned in Paragraph I showing correctly. (d) the closing stock on each day. (ii) The licensee shall complete his accounts for each day on the day to which they relate, unless prevented by reasonable cause the burden of proving which, shall be upon him." This paragraph evidently contemplates that the licensee unless exempted by specific order of the Government or the licensing authority, shall maintain a correct account of each day of the foodgrains. In other words, the failure on the part of the licencee to maintain correctly the account of stock of foodgrains each day, is a violation of the statutory provision of the licence and, accordingly, it is punishable under the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is no doubt open to the licencee to show that the failure to maintain the account correctly was due to causes beyond his control or that he was prevented from maintaining the account correctly on account of some reasonable cause. It is no doubt open to the licencee to show that the failure to maintain the account correctly was due to causes beyond his control or that he was prevented from maintaining the account correctly on account of some reasonable cause. It has, however, been specifically provided in the aforesaid paragraph of the licence that the burden of proving the reasonable cause shall rest upon the licensee. This obviously means that a licensee is liable to prosecution for the discrepancy found in the account books maintained by him unless he proves to the satisfaction of the inspecting authority that the discrepancy was not due to any wilful or deliberate act on his part but due to a reasonable cause or causes beyond his control. It is not for the inspecting officer or the investigating officer while initiating the proceeding to look for any explanation but it is for the licensee to come forward with an explanation, if any, for the consideration of the authorities concerned. To enjoin upon the investigating or the inspecting officer to look for an explanation of the licensee before initiating the proceeding will obviously mean shifting the onus wrongly and giving a wrong interpretation of the terms of the licence. Undoubtedly, the explanation, if any, put forward by the licensee is a matter which is within his special knowledge and as such it is for him to come forward with an explanation and satisfy the authorities concerned. There may be cases in which the licensee may have no explanation to offer at the spot. He may come out with an explanation at a later stage of the proceeding. Does It mean that the initiation of the proceeding shall be kept in abeyance till an explanation is obtained? The aforesaid terms of the licence do not lay down any time limit or the stage at which the licensee is to discharge the burden cast upon him in this regard. It is open to the licensee to prove at any stage of the proceeding; namely, at its inception, during investigation, at the time of taking cognizance by the Subdivisional Magistrate or even during the course of the trial, that he could not maintain the accounts correctly as he was prevented by reasonable cause. What weight will be attached to such a plea of the licensee will be a matter for the authorities concerned to consider. What weight will be attached to such a plea of the licensee will be a matter for the authorities concerned to consider. With great respect, therefore, I am of the view that the proposition has been too widely worded in Brij Beharis case, 1966 BLJR 432. 5 So far as the present case is concerned Mrs. Lalls argument it that in the remarks column of the stock register the names of the owners of the extra stock had been mentioned and the Magistrate or the investigating officer should have taken this aspect of the matter into account. It appears from the report of the Magistrate, Shri Shastri that he took into consideration these entries and he doubted their genuineness. It cannot be said, herefore, that the officers concerned have ignored the explanation of the petitioners. In any event, it is still open to the Subdivisional Magistrate to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter while taking cognizance in this ease. At the present stage, there is nothing to show that the initiation of the proceeding against petitioners 1 and 5 is illegal. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.