JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. The seized paddy was directed to be confiscated to the State. 2. Prosecution case is that on 8th of January 1966, the Petitioner was bringing 13 bags of paddy in two carts to Berhampur. He was detected at Jagabandhu Dandasi street. The paddy was weighed and found to be ten quintals and fifty kilograms. He had no licence and accordingly, he committed an offence u/s 7 of the Act read with Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The defence was that the Petitioner was a cultivator and he was bringing the paddy from home for milling and that the paddy was not weighed and was not more than ten quintals. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate rejected the pleas and convicted the Petitioner. 3. Mr. Murty urges two contentions: (i) that the paddy was not weighed; and (ii) that the Petitioner being a cultivator, he was not a dealer and as such was not bound to take a licence. 4. The first contention is without force. The learned Magistrate has examined the evidence and after having heard Mr. Murty at length, I am not impressed with his criticism that the paddy was not weighed. Though the school teacher (p.w.1) stated that he signed the seizure list before the paddy was weighed, no question was put to him in cross-examination that he did not see the weighing of the paddy. The Sub-Inspector (p.w.3) clearly states that the paddy was weighed and was found to be ten quintals and fifty kilograms. Nothing has been suggested against this witness why he should implicate this poor cultivator in a false charge. The first contention is accordingly rejected. 5. The second contention requires a careful examination. Clause 15 of the Order says that the Orissa Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1904, in so far as it relates to rice and paddy shall stand repealed except as respects things done or omitted to be done under the order so repealed. The incident took place on 8-1-1966. This case must, therefore, be governed by this Order. Clause 15 of the Order says that the Orissa Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1904, in so far as it relates to rice and paddy shall stand repealed except as respects things done or omitted to be done under the order so repealed. The incident took place on 8-1-1966. This case must, therefore, be governed by this Order. Clause 2(b) defines "dealer" as: "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage in wholesale quantity of rice, or paddy or rice and paddy taken together but does not include a cultivator or landlord". Clause 3, Sub-clause (1) prescribes that- No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. Sub-clause (2) thereof says- For the purpose of this clause any person who stores rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together in quantity exceeding ten quintals shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be a dealer. In this case, ten quintals and fifty kilograms of paddy were found from the possession of the Petitioner. He must, therefore, be deemed to be a dealer under Clause 3, Sub-clause (2) of the Order. Admittedly, he bad no licence. But in the definition of the 'dealer' as already quoted, a 'cultivator' or a 'landlord' is excluded. There being a presumption against the Petitioner that he shall be deemed to be a dealer, the onus is on him to establish that he is a cultivator so as to escape from the mischief of the operation of the offence u/s 7 of the Act. 6. In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner did not clearly say that he was a cultivator. He merely stated that he had brought the paddy from his borne for milling purpose. He, however, examined d.w.1 who stated that the Petitioner was a cultivator. Mr. Murty wanted to produce certain registered sale deeds showing that agricultural lands have been purchased by the Petitioner and that he is a cultivator. As these documents were not produced in the Court., below he was not permitted to produce them here. But I find no sufficient reason why the evidence of d.w.1 should not be accepted. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence which goes counter to this. 7. A cultivator is excluded from the definition of a dealer. As these documents were not produced in the Court., below he was not permitted to produce them here. But I find no sufficient reason why the evidence of d.w.1 should not be accepted. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence which goes counter to this. 7. A cultivator is excluded from the definition of a dealer. But an anomaly appears to have existed therein as not having reconciled the definition of 'dealer' with the presumption under Clause (3) Sub-clause (2)1 The definition ought to have contained a further clause to the effect "but does not include a cultivator or a landlord, having usufruct from his land exceeding more than ten quintals". As the definition stands, if a cultivator has got half an acre of land and, even if ten quintals of paddy cannot be produced from such a land, he would escape from the mischief of the definition. In this case, there is no clear evidence as to what would be the output from the lands of the Petitioner. But all the same, there is acceptable evidence that he is a cultivator. Being cultivator, he is not a dealer and as such requires no licence for possessing and' storing ten quintals and fifty kilograms of' paddy, The Petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. 8, In the result, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the criminal revision is allowed, Fines, if paid, be refunded. The seized paddy be restored to the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed