JUDGMENT R. P. Sinha, J- Both these applications under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the petitioners are for quashing a criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi. 2. It appears that both the petitioners are partners of a firm know as M/s Janki Prasad Bharthiya, Jawaherchak Sitamarhi which is a licensee under the Bihar Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the "Licensing Order). On 30.8.1974 one Mahal Chand Motilal Kothari and Company, a Firm registered under the Licensing Order, of West Bengal, purchased 500 bags of sugar from M/s Belsand Sugar Company Ltd. Riga, which is at a distance of five miles from Sitamarhi town. On obtaining receipts and cash memos along with the gate pass the said Firm was to carry the sugar to Calcutta on trucks. Since the road from Sitamarhi town to Calcutta was completely damaged due to heavy floods in the area, the representative of Calcutta Firm requested the petitioner to allow temporarily to store the 500 bags of sugar in their godown and the petitioners accordingly allowed storage of 500 bags of sugar temporarily in their godown at Sitamarhi. On the following day i. e. on 31. 8. 1974 the Firm M/s Janki Prasad Bharthiya informed the Sub-divisional Officer, Sitamarhi that under the unusual circumstances mentioned above they had allowed the Calcutta firm to store 500 bags of sugar purchased from the sugar mill till the road was not fit for communication. The letters written to the Sub-divisional Officer, Sitamarhi are Annexure 1' and 2' to the applications in Criminal Mis-cellaneous Nos. 2889 and 3593 of 1974, respectively. On 8.9.1974 the Supply Inspector of Sitamarhi came to the godown of the petitioners Firm and seized the entire sugar without disclosing any for the seizure. On 14.9.1974 the aforesaid Supply Inspector filed a written complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, alleging therein that the petitioner's Firm violated the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order by storing sugar more than 250 quintals and the Calcutta Firm had abated the commission of the said offences. On 14.9.1974 the aforesaid Supply Inspector filed a written complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, alleging therein that the petitioner's Firm violated the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order by storing sugar more than 250 quintals and the Calcutta Firm had abated the commission of the said offences. On the basis of the complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (wrongly stated in the application as Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate) took cognizance against the accused persons including the two petitioners for contravention of the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of the Bihar Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (wrongly stated in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of sections 3 and 7 of the Bihar Sugar Dealers Licensing Order) which is punishable under sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, and transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi West, for disposal, who issued non-bailable warrant of arrests against the accused persons including these two petitioners. 3. These two petitioners, instead of filing one application before this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, have preferred two separate applications and the facts stated in both the applications are same. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that this is a fit case in which the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners and the proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate should be quashed as the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order. In support of his argument he has referred to certain papers which are annexed with these applications, namely in criminal Misc. No. 2889 of 1974, Annexure 1' is a copy of the letter dated 31.8.74 sent by the Firm M/s Janki Prasad Bharthiya to the Sub-divisional Officer, Sitamarhi West, annexure 2' is copy of the complaint petition filed by the Supply Inspector against these petitioners and others on 14. 9. 1974, Annexure 3' is copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14. 9. 1974 taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint. 9. 1974, Annexure 3' is copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14. 9. 1974 taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint. Anaexure 4' is copy of Circular No. 1-13/71 Spy dated 19th July, 1974 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, to all the sugar factories, Annexure 5' is copy of the certificate issued by the sugar mill from which the sugar, in question, was purchased by the Calcutta Firm, Annexu'6' is copy of a letter dated 31. 8. 1974 addressed to Sub-divisional Officer and Assistant District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi, was by Sri Bashist Narain Jha and Sri Shital Prasad, the two Supply Inspectors of Sitamarhi and Annexure 7' is copy of a letter of the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Sitamarhi, Road Division, Muzaffarpur which shows that Muzaffarpur to Sitamarhi Road was not fit for trucks to ply from 31. 7. 1974 till 19. 9.1974. Similar Annexures are also attached to the Criminal Misc, No. 3593 of 1974. 5. From the letter written by the Firm of which these petitioners are partners to the Sub-divisional Officer Sitamarhi West it appears that the Firm had informed the Sub-divisional Officer that on 30. 8. 1974, 500 bags of sugar of the Calcutta firm had been kept in the god own of the firms of the petitioners as they could not be taken to Calcutta on account of bad road from Sitamarhi to Muzaffarpur. It was also stated in that letter that so long the road is not fit for plying the sugar will be kept in storage there and for that the necessary order may be issued and the same would not be removed without the order of the Sub-divisional Officer. Along with this letter a gate pass issued by the sugar mill was also attached. Annexure 6' is copy of the letter by the two Supply Inspectors dated 31. 8. 1974 to the Sub-divisional Officer Sitamarhi west which shows that the firm of the petitioners had informed that the Calcutta Firm bad stored 500 bags of sugar in the god own of the petitioners. The reason for storage of the sugar has also been stated in the letter and it has been suggested that the firm of the petitioners should be asked as to why without obtaining previous sanction, the sugar in question had been stored there. The reason for storage of the sugar has also been stated in the letter and it has been suggested that the firm of the petitioners should be asked as to why without obtaining previous sanction, the sugar in question had been stored there. Form Annexure 6' it is not evident that the Supply Inspector had come to know about storage of the sugar in question of the Calcutta Firm. Yet, surprisingly the same Supply Inspector in his petition of complaint dated 14. 9. 1974 has stated that on receipt of confidential information on 31. 8. 1974 he along with Shital Prasad visited the premises of the petitioners although in the letter, Annexure 6' the same Supply Inspector along with Shital Prasad has stated that the Firm of the petitioners had informed about having stored the sugar in question belonging to the Calcutta Firm and he had suggested also the firm should be asked as to why previous sanction was not obtained for storing the sugar, in question. 6. A copy of the circular communicated to the sugar factories by the Ministry of Agriculture has been annexed with the applications as Annexure 4' to show that the sugar factories had to sell the free sale quantity of the sugar and that free sale quantity of sugar should not be allowed to lapse. This has been filed to show that the sugar factory had to supply the quantity of the free sale sugar to the Calcutta Firm within a certain period. In case of default the defaulter factories render themselves liable for penalty under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, A copy of the certificate from the sugar factory from which the sugar was purchased by the Calcutta firm has been annexed as Annexure 5' to this application from which it appears that the Calcutta Firm was allotted the sugar in question against free sale released by the Directorate of Sugar and Banaspati, New Delhi the validity of which was up to 31. 8. 1974. From this it appears that the Calcutta firm had to take delivery of the sugar in question on or before 31. 8. 74 from the sugar factory at Riga. 8. 1974. From this it appears that the Calcutta firm had to take delivery of the sugar in question on or before 31. 8. 74 from the sugar factory at Riga. That sugar was actually stored in the god own of petitioners and for storing the sugar in question the Supply Inspectors had filed the petition of complaint for which cognizance has been taken against these petitioners and others for violating the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of Licensing Order. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the storage of sugar, in question, during transit from the factory to Calcutta at Sitamarhi does not come within the mischief of Clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order. It was a temporary storage on behalf of the sugar dealer who had to carry the sugar, in question from the factory to Calcutta but on account of bad road from Sitamarhi to Muzaffarpur the same had to be stored at Sitamarhi and these petitioners actually offered to store the sugar in their Firm godown and informed the proper authority regarding their having done so and prayed for giving orders for storing the sugar in question on behalf of the Calcutta Firm under the circumstances mentioned above. It was made clear in the information sent to the Sub-divisional Officer by the Firm of the petitioners that the sugar, in question would not• be allowed to move without the permission of Sub-divisional Officer. The simple question is whether the storage of sugar, in question was storage within the meaning of clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Proprietor M/s Swadeshi Sugar Supplies (P) Ltd. and others-versus. The State of Bihar1 which was identical to the present application and it was observed as follows :- " . . . . On a finding that the storage in question was a storage in transit and that could not be deemed to be storage within the meaning of clause 3 of the aforesaid Licensing Order." It has also been submitted that from the facts and circumstances of this case and from the conduct of the partners who are partners of the firm it is quite vivid that the petitioners had no mensrea in storing the sugar bags in question. It has been rightly submitted that the storage of the sugar bags, in question cannot be treated as storage by the Firm of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying on business as dealer of the sugar. 9, So after considering the facts and cirumstances and the provisions of clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order, I am of the opinion that storage of the sugar in transit in the godown of the firm of the petitioners was not with any ulterior motive nor the petitioners had any mensrea nor the storage under the circumstances of the case, can be said to be storage for godown under clause 3 of the Licensing Order. 10. Hence, both the applications are allowed, the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, is set aside and the criminal Proceeding pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. 1 st class, against these petitioners is quashed. Application allowed.