JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - The applicant Jokhu stands convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the ground that he had contravened the provisions contained in para. 3 of the UP Food-Grains Dealers' Licencing Order, 1964. The sentence awarded, as modified by the appellate court, is fine in a sum of Rs. 500, in default four months rigorous imprisonment. There is also an order directing forfeiture of 20 bags of rice which were recovered from the possession of the applicant. 2. On 29-11-1965, the shop and the godown of the applicant situate in village Bhagwanpur in the district of Gorakhpur were searched by a senior Marketing Inspector who was accompanied by two Inspectors. 20 bags of rice weighing 19 quintals 85 kgs. were recovered from the possession of the applicant. There was no controversy that the applicant had no licence or permit for possessing the aforesaid quantity of rice and the charge against the applicant was that in the circumstances the possession of the aforesaid quantity of rice constitute breach of the provisions contained in para. 3 of the UP Food Grains Dealers' Licencing Order, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Order. 3. At the relevant time para. 3 of the Order ran as follows : "Licencing of Dealers (1) 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. (2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores any food-grains in quantity of ten quintals or more of any one of the foodgrains or 25 quintals, of all foodgrains taken together at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the foodgrains for the purpose of sale." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the mere fact that the applicant was found in possession of foodgrains in excess of the quantity mentioned in cl. (2) aforesaid, is not prohibited by the provisions contained in cl. (1) above. He has urged that what is prohibited by the provisions contained in cl. (1) is the carrying on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence. (2) aforesaid, is not prohibited by the provisions contained in cl. (1) above. He has urged that what is prohibited by the provisions contained in cl. (1) is the carrying on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence. The contention of the learned counsel is that the mere fact that the applicant was found in possession would not warrant the view +hat the applicant was carrying on business as a dealer in regard to the foodgrains found in the applicant's possession. Indeed the applicant had specifically denied that he carried on the business of selling rice. His assertion was that he was himself a cultivator and the rice found in his possession had been produced by him as a cultivator. 5. Learned counsel for the State has conceded that there is no evidence on record to make out that the applicant was carrying on the business of selling rice. He has, however, placed reliance on the provisions contained in cl. (2) of para. 3 of the Order and asserts that inasmuch as the applicant was found to have stored foodgrains in excess of the quantity mentioned therein, the applicant must be deemed to have stored those foodgrains for the purpose of sale. In view of the provisions contained in cl. (2) above, there can be no doubt that the applicant must be deemed to have stored the entire quantity of rice found in his possession for the purpose of sale. The question, however, remains as to what precisely is prohibited by cl. (1) of para 3 of the Order. The prohibition, according to the language of para (1), is against carrying on business and not against storing foodgrains for the purpose of sale. Mere proof of storage, assuming that it was for the purpose of sale, would lead at best to the conclusion that the applicant had made preparation for the business of selling rice. That by itself would not, however, be sufficient to justify the view that the applicant was carrying on business of selling rice. A penal statute has to be strictly construed and it is settled law that mere preparation, except in regard to certain offences specifically provided for, is no offence. 6. That by itself would not, however, be sufficient to justify the view that the applicant was carrying on business of selling rice. A penal statute has to be strictly construed and it is settled law that mere preparation, except in regard to certain offences specifically provided for, is no offence. 6. It may be that the intention in incorporating the deeming clause, viz., the second clause of para 3 of the Order, was to raise a presumption of carrying on business against any person who was found in possession of foodgrains in excess of the quantity laid down therein. But this intention does not appear to have been properly carried out by the legislature. It is a well known rule of construction that the language of a statute cannot be strained for the purpose of giving effect to the intention behind that statute. Reference may be made to the fact that in 1968 cl. (2) of para 3 of the Order was modified by substituting the expression, "be deemed to be engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of such foodgrains" for the expression "be deemed to store the foodgrains for the purpose of sale", vide notification dated 27-8-1968 in UP Gazette Part I-A, dated 7-9-1968 (Bhadra 16, 1890 Saka) being notification No. 3570/XXIX-D-2-(23). 68 under the Essential Commodities Act 1955. It is manifest that the Governor subsequently realised that in framing cl. (2) of para 3 of the Order, he had not brought about what he intended with the result that in 1968 cl. (2) was amended as indicated above. There can be no doubt that in view of the provisions contained in cl. (2) , as they now stand, a person found in possession of the quantity of foodgrains, found in possession of the applicant, would be guilty, but the applicant cannot be held guilty because whereas the recovery from the possession of the applicant took place on 29-11-1965, the amendment in cl. (2), referred to above, came into force on 7-9-1968. This application must, therefore, be allowed and the conviction of the applicant set aside. 7. Accordingly, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the applicant, as also the sentence of fine awarded to him, and acquit him of the charge on which he was tried. (2), referred to above, came into force on 7-9-1968. This application must, therefore, be allowed and the conviction of the applicant set aside. 7. Accordingly, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the applicant, as also the sentence of fine awarded to him, and acquit him of the charge on which he was tried. The order of forfeiture of the rice recovered from the applicant's possession is also set aside, and it is directed that the rice in question, or the proceeds thereof in case the same has been sold off, must he restored to the applicant.