Short Note : The prosecution case in brief is that Shri H. K. Dwivedi, checked the godown of Bhikamchand son of Hubbalal and seized 29 Quintal 45 Kg. Arhar. 5 Quintal 70 Kg. Bajra and 3 Quintal 80 Kg, Gram. It is also alleged that at the time of the alleged seizure, Bhikamchand had no licence to deal in foodgrains. The aforesaid foodgrains were given in Supurdagi to one Rajaram son of Bhajanlal, resident of Bhind and a report was lodged to the Police Station Bhind, where a case under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was registered. The Police submitted a report to the Collector that the seized foodgrains being perishable commodities and are likely to decay, they be auctioned and sold. The learned Collector issued a notice to the non-applicant Bhikamchand on 23-8-1978 under section 6-B of the Act to show cause why the seized foodgrains be not confiscated. In reply to the notice, he submitted that he has a house in Bhind in which his brother Fulzarilal has also a share. It was also stated that Mahavir Prasad son of Fulzarilal had a licence at the time of the alleged seizure to deal in foodgrains. He has also stated that he had a licence of Tulaiya (weighman) of Galla Mandi, Bhind. He has further alleged that the foodgrains were of other non-petitioners and they were stored with him as a trustee and as such the foodgrains should be returned to him. 2. After the reply, the Collector recorded the statement of the Food Inspector on 6-9-1973 and after hearing parties, reserved the case for orders and on 29-9-1973, the order of confiscation under section 6-A of the Act was passed, which is under challenge. 3. The appeal is allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on various grounds. The first ground for allowing the appeal is that no proper opportunity was given after a notice to show cause why the grains should not be confiscated was served on the non-petitioners and this is clearly in violation of the provisions of section 6-B. of the Act. One more objection was raised before the learned Sessions Judge by the non-petitioners that they were ignorant that these grains were included in the Schedule appended to the M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. One more objection was raised before the learned Sessions Judge by the non-petitioners that they were ignorant that these grains were included in the Schedule appended to the M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected this contention by saying that ignorance of law is no excuse. I am also of the same view. 4. Held: But the fundamental question that I want to deal in this case is that when an action under section 6-A of the Act can be taken. Reading this section, it is clear that before confiscation, the Collector should be satisfied that there is a contravention of the Order. If there is no contravention of the order, then the Collector does not get jurisdiction under section 6-A to confiscate the foodgrain. Therefore, the first and most important ingredient is that the Collector should find that there was contravention of the Order. In all these cases, I fail to see any finding by the Collector regarding contravention of the Order. 5. The Order means, the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensingh Order, 1965. Therefore, I will have to see whether there is any contravention of any provision of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order of 1965. Clause 3 of the said order deals with licensing of a dealer. It puts a restriction that no person shall carryon business as a dealer except under and in accordance with terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. Clause 3 (2) provides for a presumption. This presumption is available so that if there is storing of foodgrains, it will be presumed that it was stored for sale. Because of this presumption only, there cannot be any conviction. Independently of this presumption, the prosecution will have to prove that the accused is a dealer as defined in clause 2 of the abovesaid order and that prosecution will also further have to prove that there were dealings by the accused in the foodgrains. This takes to the definition of a dealer. Clause 2 of the said order gives the definition of a dealer. 6. Reading this definition, I think that the prosecution must prove certain things positively. The first ingredient is that the person is engaged or intends to engage in business of purchase, sale or storage for sale. This takes to the definition of a dealer. Clause 2 of the said order gives the definition of a dealer. 6. Reading this definition, I think that the prosecution must prove certain things positively. The first ingredient is that the person is engaged or intends to engage in business of purchase, sale or storage for sale. The Court will have to decide before confiscation of grain whether the petitioner is a Kachha Adatiya or not and thirdly, the Court will have to consider the objection and aspect of the case as to whether the foodgrains seized are produced by the non-petitioner by his personal cultivation and he is not engaged in business of purchase or sale of foodgrains. What is the dealer and what is the effect of the presumption under clause 3 (2) of the order was considered by the Supreme Court in Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1533 . 7. In all these cases, the learned Collector has not examined this aspect of the case and also has not given a finding as to whether non-petitioner is covered under the definition of 'dealer' whether there is a contravention of any provision of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. If there is no contravention of Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, then naturally section 6-A of the Act will not be applicable as there is no contravention of any Order and that there cannot be any confiscation. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is correct, but on different view of the matter. AIR 1964 SC 1533 , relied on. Revisions dismissed.