Short Note : The applicant Firm Chhitarmal Motilal of Shujalpur Mandi, district Shajapur, is a partnership firm of which one Sitaram is a partner. This firm holds a licence under the M.P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) issued under section 3 of the Act. On April 17, 1976, the Assistant Food Inspector, Shujalpur inspected business premises of the aforesaid firm and found that 44 quintals of wheat in 49 bags were stored by the firm at a place not specified in licence and that this stock was not entered in the register which the firm was required to maintain under the conditions of the licence. The Assistant Food Inspector, therefore, submitted a report to the Licensing Authority (Collector) recommending to issue show-cause notice to the firm for the breach of the provisions of the aforesaid licence issued under the Order. The Licensing Authority issued notice to the firm to show cause why suitable action should not be taken against it for committing the aforesaid breach of the licence issued under the Order. In the reply submitted by the partners of the firm, it was alleged that Sitaram was the recorded-holder of certain agricultural lands; that on the date of the aforesaid inspection, he had received 44 bags of wheat as the produce from his agricultural lands at 7 A.M. in the morning and that no entry could be made in the register prescribed by the licence as the time for making the entry was not over when the premises were inspected The learned Collector after considering the cause shown by the firm, ordered that the stock of wheat which was in excess of the stock entered in the stock register, was liable to be forfeited under section 6-A of the Act. Against this order passed by the Collector, an appeal was filed by the firm under section 6-C of the Act but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against this appellate order, the revision petition has been filed by the firm. Held: It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the stock of wheat seized from the applicants premises was not liable to be confiscated as provided by section 6-A of the Act as the said stock was the produce from the agricultural lands of Sitaram, one of the partners of the applicant-firm. Held: It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the stock of wheat seized from the applicants premises was not liable to be confiscated as provided by section 6-A of the Act as the said stock was the produce from the agricultural lands of Sitaram, one of the partners of the applicant-firm. It appeals that both before the Licensing Authority as also before the Sessions Judge, it was not disputed that the wheat stock seized in this case was the produce of the lands held by the applicant-firm's partner Sitaram but in this case proceedings under the Licensing Order were taken against the partnership-firm and not against the partner Sitaram individually. It was, therefore, necessary for the Licensing Authority to determine as to whether the produce was of the firm or of its partner. As this question has not been enquired into and the case has proceeded on an erroneous assumption, the matter requires to be re-examined in the light of such material as may be placed before the Licensing Authority. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants also contended that according to the terms and conditions of the licence, the licence, holder could make an entry of the stock of wheat received by him at any time before the closing hours of the business and that since in this case the stock was seized during the early hours of the day and much time was left for making the entry during the business hours the licence-holder cannot be said to have contravened any of the terms and conditions of the licence. This contention prima facie require consideration. As the matter is remanded to the Licensing Authority, this contention of the applicants shall also be examined and necessary orders should be passed. Case remanded. Revision allowed.