JUDGMENT : A.B.N. Sinha, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the prosecution of the petitioners, proprietors of a firm called M/S. Mauji Lall Arjun Prasad of Biharsharif, under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pending in the court of Shri B.N. Ambastha, Munsif Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif. 2. On the 25th of July 1907, the Assistant district supply Officer, Biharsharif filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif, alleging, inter alia that certain irregularities had been detected in the stock register maintained by the petitioners' firm, that there was failure to comply with instructions of Government by not displaying tally cards and signboards and such, there was a breach of the conditions of the licence that contrary to the directions given to the firm, daily returns for certain periods had not been submitted that stock registers of foodgrains other than wheat were not being maintained, that fortnightly returns in form C. prescribed under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers licencing ORDER :, 1966, of the stock and all the receipts and deliveries thereof had never been furnished and that petitioners did not offer proper facilities to the officer or officers conducting the verification of the godown. It was also alleged that despite repeated demands the firm had failed to furnish a list of godowns occupied and maintained by them. A F.I.R. with similar allegations had been lodged with the police on the 25th of April 1967. Before the police had closed the case the Assistant District Supply Officer filed the complaint spoken of above. The learned Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif by his ORDER :dated the 25th of July, 1967 has taken cognizance of a case under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners. It is this prosecution which is being sought to be quashed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have carefully perused the complaint petition. It is apparent from the complaint petition that the petitioner's firm were appointed as Government food-grains stockists under an agreement dated the 15th of April 1966. The short question for determination is whether a person who has agreed to work as a Government foodgrains stockist ipso facto constitutes himself into a wholesale dealer within the meaning of Clause 2(d) of the Bihar foodgrains Dealers licencing ORDER :, 1966. That clause reads as under. The short question for determination is whether a person who has agreed to work as a Government foodgrains stockist ipso facto constitutes himself into a wholesale dealer within the meaning of Clause 2(d) of the Bihar foodgrains Dealers licencing ORDER :, 1966. That clause reads as under. "Wholesale dealer means a person (including a rice/flour miller) engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for purpose other than personal consumption of one or more of the foodgrains in quantity exceeding one hundred quintals, at any one time and includes any person doing so on behalf of another as a commission agent or arahtia or otherwise." It is manifest that a wholesale dealer within the meaning of the above clause must be a person who is engaged in the business of purchase, sale or a storage of foodgrains. Upon the terms of the agreement dated the 15th of April 1966, which forms annexure A to the present application, there can be no doubt that the firm of which the petitioners are the proprietors had no hand in the purchase or sale of the foodgrains stored by them for and on behalf of the Government. In form as well as in substance their position was that of a bailee, and they were entitled to certain remuneration on percentage basis or otherwise in accordance with the terms of the agreement for storing the foodgrains. It is significant that the foodgrains were kept in double locks, the purchase of the foodgrains as also the sale thereof being entirely controlled by the Government and affected through their own employees. It thus clearly follows, in my opinion, that the firm of which the petitioners are the proprietors cannot come within the meaning of the expression wholesale dealers as given in Clause 2(d) of the Bihar foodgrains Dealers licencing ORDER :, 1966, Their rights and obligations and the rights and obligations of the other contracting party, namely the Government must be taken to be governed by the agreement entered into by them. They can be sued for breach of one or another term of the agreement and damages' may be recovered if the breach alleged is established, but surely by reason of the agreement they cannot be converted into "wholesale dealers". It may be mentioned that nowhere in the complaint petition the licence number of the petitioner's firm is given. They can be sued for breach of one or another term of the agreement and damages' may be recovered if the breach alleged is established, but surely by reason of the agreement they cannot be converted into "wholesale dealers". It may be mentioned that nowhere in the complaint petition the licence number of the petitioner's firm is given. Though the Assistant District Supply Officer has stated in para. 2 of the complaint petition that the accused persons were licensee of food-grains, this description of the petitioners in my opinion proceeds under a complete misapprehension. In the circumstances I have no doubt that the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly misconceived and must be quashed. 4. In the result this application succeeds, criminal proceedings pending in the court of Shri R.N. Ambastha Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class Biharsharif will be quashed. The rule is accordingly made absolute.