Judgment Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application has been heard along with criminal Miscellaneous Nos.2100 of 1975 and 67 of 1975. Normally I should have decided the three applications together, but having regard to the different contentions arising in the three cases, I will deal with each of them separately. This judgment of mine shall govern only Criminal Miscellaneous No.52 of 1975. 2. By this application, the petitioners pray, for quashing the criminal proceeding started against them which arises out of Bhagalpur P. C. Case no 2 of 1974. 3. A complaint was filed by the Supply Inspector, Bhagalpur, on the 7th of April, 1974, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Bhagalpur, complaining against 24 persons. With regard to the first named accused, who is not a petitioner here, the allegation was that he had illegally, without having a licence kept in his stock cloth for sale. The allegation against the rest of the accused persons was that they had concealed their stock of cloth with accused no.1 of the 24 persons accused in the said petition of complaint, eight of them have moved this court by this application. They are mentioned in the petition of complaint at serial Nos.5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 23 and 24 4. The facts stated in the petition of complaint are that on making search of the residential house of Banwari Lal Sah, accused No.1, and also of his rented premises, which is located on the first floor of the house of Sri Shankarlal dhandhania on Anand Chikitsalaya Road, Bhagalpur, 397 bales of cloth were recovered. On being asked, accused No.1 Banwari Lal Sah, said that all the bales contained cotton cloth which belonged to several business men who had hypothecated them to him. The said accused No.1 on being asked to produce his licence for doing such business, did not produce it. He, however, gave a list of the names of sixteen firms which had hypothecated the said bales of cloth. Although this list was given on the 5th of April, 1974, a day prior to that, namely, on the 4th of April 1974, he gave a statement in writing in which he merely stated these bales of cloth belonged to different traders, and not to him. He did not state therein that these bales of cloth had been hypothecated to him. He did not state therein that these bales of cloth had been hypothecated to him. The petitioners, along with other persons, who were partners of the said firms were thus complained against in the said petition of complaint on the allegation as aforesaid they had tried to illegally conceal their stock of cotton cloth for doing clandestine business. These are all the relevant facts that have been started in the said petition of complaint. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the facts stated in the petition of complaint do not make out any offence against the petitioners and, consequently, the criminal proceeding started against them must be quashed. It is submitted that in terms of clause 3 of the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "order" a person is required to carry on business as a dealer under a licence and in accordance with the terms and condition thereof, issued by the licensing authority. Even if it was accepted that the petitioners had hypothecated or kept some cotton cloth belonging to each one of them, they cannot be said to be carrying on business, because hypothecation of the goods and carrying on business in the same cannot go side by side. It was further submitted that the terms of clause 3 of the Order did not apply to their case and consequently they were not required to have any licence under the Order. It was also submitted that as a matter of fact, except petitioner No.6, Mahabir Prasad Bagaria, who had applied for initial grant of licence for the calendar year 1975, and petitioner No.8, Raj kumar Bagaria, who had applied for initial grant of a licence for the year 1972 and for its renewal for the calendar years 1973 and 1974, all other petitioners are, in fact, holding licence in accordance with the Order. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the statement made in the petition of complaint to the contrary was wrong. neither holding cloth and yarn in store with themselves nor had those goods been hypothecated or pledged to them. All that is stated in the petition of complaint is that these petitioners were the owners of the bales of cloth which were lying in the custody of accused No.1, Banwari Lal Sah. neither holding cloth and yarn in store with themselves nor had those goods been hypothecated or pledged to them. All that is stated in the petition of complaint is that these petitioners were the owners of the bales of cloth which were lying in the custody of accused No.1, Banwari Lal Sah. As I read the aforesaid provision of the order, there was no obligation on the petitioners for obtaining a licence for such a purpose. As observed earlier, under the terms of the aforesaid provision, a licence is required to be held only when a person carries on business as a dealer or holds cloth and yarn in hypothecation or against pledge or holds cloth and yarn in store. Essentially, therefore, a licence is required to be taken only when either of the three circumstances apply to any of the persons concerned individually, that is to say, either he must be carrying on business as a dealer himself, or he must be holding cloth and yarn in hypothecation or pledge himself, or he must be keeping the cloth and yarn in store with himself. A case may arise where a pebon having purchased cloth and yarn stores it in the custody of some one else. The goods, no doubt, belong to him, but since clause 3 of the Order deed not call upon such a person to obtain a licence for such ownership, such a person cannot be said to have contravened that clause. The said clause clearly indicates that it is the person concerned either with the carrying of business or withholding the cloth and yarn in hypothecation or pledge or in store who has to obtain the licence for these purposes. Upon the facts as stated in the petition of complaint, it is amply clear that the bales of cloth were held by accused no.1, Banwari Lal Sah, either in hypothecation or pledge or in store for others. It was, therefore, for that person, namely, for accused No.1 to have the licence for those purposes. Upon the facts as stated in the petition of complaint, it is amply clear that the bales of cloth were held by accused no.1, Banwari Lal Sah, either in hypothecation or pledge or in store for others. It was, therefore, for that person, namely, for accused No.1 to have the licence for those purposes. May be that the interpretation which I have given to clause 3 may lead to leakage, inasmuch as a person may store his own goods not with himself but with some one else and avoid the provision relating to obtaining a licence, but since the provision of clause 3 do not call upon the owner of the goods to have a licence rather they call upon only such persons who carry on business as a dealer or hold in store cloth and yarn to have a licence, the owner of the goods cannot be held liable for contravention of clause 3 of the order, if he has not obtained a licence for owning the goods. Therefore, even if all the facts stated in the petition of complaint be accepted at their face value, they do not inculpate the petitioners for any contravention. 10. I, accordingly, quash the criminal proceeding started against the petitioners in the case arising out of Bhagalpur P. S. Case No.2 of 1974. The application is allowed. Application allowed.