JUDGMENT : Ray, J. - The Petitioner has been prosecuted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having purchased 19.23? quintals of paddy (51 mounds 17? seers) from the sandy at Doraguda on 14-12-1966 without a valid permit in contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1959. 2. The trial Court found that the prosecution has established that the accused had purchased the aforesaid quantity of paddy from different producers at the Sandy. Relying on the definition of 'dealer' in the Food Grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') that it means a person who is engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of anyone of the foodgrains in quantities of fifty standard mounds or more in a single calender day, he convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for thirty days and directed that the seized property, that is the purchased paddy, be confiscated to the State. 3. The Petitioner went up in revision to the Court of Sessions, Koraput-Jeypore. The revision was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner were confirmed. The Petitioner has therefore come up in revision to this Court against this order of conviction and sentence. 4. The sole question raised by the Petitioner is that he cannot be said to be a 'dealer' within the meaning of its definition in Clause 2(a) of the Order and that the prosecution has failed to prove that he has been carrying on business in paddy as a dealer on the alleged date of occurrence. It is appropriate now to refer to the relevant provisions of the Order. Rule 2(a) of the Order defines 'dealer' as a person engaged in the business of purchase and sale of food grains in quantities of fifty mounds in a single calendar day. Rule 3(1) of the order lays down that 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. Contravention of the rule is punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Rule 3(1) of the order lays down that 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. Contravention of the rule is punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Before a conviction can be based for contravention of the aforesaid Rule 3(1) of the order, the prosecution must establish that the Petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Licensing Order and that be was carrying on business as such. The prosecution has failed to establish these two elements. 5. The persons who are alleged to have sold paddy to the Petitioner have been examined in this case. One of them is p.w. 5. He deposes that he gave paddy to the Petitioner in payment of the paddy-loan which he had incurred from him previously. Accordingly, paddy received from p.w. 5 cannot be held to be a purchase. There is no evidence as to how much paddy was given by this witness, p.w. 5, and how much paddy was purchased from the other witnesses. J n the absence of any evidence in this regard, it cannot be said that the Petitioner purchased more then 50 mounds of paddy on 14-12-1964. It must, therefore, be found that the prosecution has failed to establish by any unimpeachable evidence that the Petitioner purchased more then 50 mds. of paddy so as to make him a dealer within the meaning of Clause 2(a) of the order. The purchase of paddy on that day was a single transaction. Therefore, the question is whether such purchase would amount to carrying on business. The term 'business' connotes a concept of continuity of transaction with a view to make profit. The evidence is not clear as to what was the ultimate object of the Petitioner in making purchase of paddy on the alleged date of occurrence. It might have been for his own consumption or it might have been for any other innocent purpose then carrying on the business of purchase. The evidence is not clear as to what was the ultimate object of the Petitioner in making purchase of paddy on the alleged date of occurrence. It might have been for his own consumption or it might have been for any other innocent purpose then carrying on the business of purchase. Mere proof of purchase of paddy in quantities of 50 mounds or more in the calendar day is not enough for conviction and the prosecution has still to discharge the onus of bringing on record every evidence available from which it could be reasonably inferred that the accused was carrying on purchasing business in paddy. The prosecution has failed to discharge this onus in this case. That this is the true legal position is quite dear from a few decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. They are to be found in Manipur Administration Vs. M. Nila Chandra Singh and Ramji Prasad Gupta Vs. The State and M. Subba Rao Vs. State of Orissa, . 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position and in view of my conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the purchases made by the Petitioner on the date of occurrence exceeded 50 standard mds., and that he was carrying on purchasing business in the said commodity, it cannot be said that Rule 3(1) has been contravened in the case. The conviction of the Petitioner is bad, and must accordingly be quashed. 7. The order of conviction and sentence and also the order of confiscation are set aside. The seized property or its money-value, if the same has been sold in the meanwhile, shall be returned to the Petitioner.