( 1 ) THE States has challenged in this writ petition the appellate order made by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Cr. A. No. 55 of 1971. Sri M. P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, learned High Court Goverment Advocate rightty contended that the learned Sessions Judge, by ignoring the amendment to clause (1) of the Mysore Foodgrains (Wholesale) Dealerra Licensing order 1964 which earns into force from 10-8-71, has coms to the conclusion that the search and seizure in this ease is void in law. But the real hurdle in the way of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in regard to the merits of the case. It cannot be disputed that under the Mysore Foodgrains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing order and the condition imposed by the licence issued under the said order, the third respondent could have stored the produce only to the godowns specified in the licence. Condition No. 2 of the licence provides that the licensee shall carry on the business of sale at the places specified below. If further provides that the food-grains in which the aforesaid business is to be carried on. shall not be stored at any place other than any of the godowns mentioned above. But the note appended to condition No. 2 reads as follows :" If the licensee intends storing his foodgrains in places other than those specified above, he shall give prior intimation and in cases where it is found difficult to give prior intimation to the licensing authority, intimation of taking over godowns for storage in such cases should be given to the licensing authority within forty-eight hours of the actual occupation of the godowns and in either case, the licensee shall produce the licence for making requisite changes by the licensing authority. " ( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the third respondent is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid note. The clear effect of the note is that it permits the licensee to store the produce in the godowns other than those mentioned in the licence and send the intimation about the same within 48 hours to the licensing authority. It further casts an obligation on the licensee to get an endorsement on the licence in regard to the additional godown where the licensee has stored his produce. It further casts an obligation on the licensee to get an endorsement on the licence in regard to the additional godown where the licensee has stored his produce. It is not disputed that the intimation about the storing of the produce in the godowns other than those mentioned in the licence was made by the third respondent on 80-8-1071. The third respondent has taken the stand that on account of leakage in the licensed godowns, he could not store the produce in them and therefore, he stored the produce in the other two godowns. But what was urged by Sri Chandrakantharaj Urs is that the third respondent should have given an intimaion to the licensing authority about the fact of storing the produce in the other two godowns, before he stored the goods in them. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this argument in para 10 of his judgment. He has observed that the third respondent's intimation was received by the licensing authority on 1-9-1971. ( 3 ) IF the intimation was received by the licensing authority on 1-9-1971, that would be well within a period of two days of the storing of the foodgrains in the new godowns. Having regard to the circumstances of the ease, i find it difficult to disturb the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this behalf. ( 4 ) IT was next urged by Sri Chandrakantharaj Urs that the third respondent not having secured the endorsement on the licence, committed a breach of the licence. But it is necessary to note that the note appended to Condetion 2 of the licence does not state wihin what period of the intimation the endorsement should be secured from the licensing authority. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the same should be secured within a reasonable time. In this case the goods were seized on 3-9-1971 leaving little or no time for the third respondent to get the endorsement on the licence as per the note referred to above. It cannot therefore be said that the third respondent has committed any breach of the note referred to above. ( 5 ) AS on merits I am agreeing with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, though the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his legal contention, this writ petition has to fail, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .