JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is preferred against the judgment dated December 1, 1976 of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts as alleged by the prosecution are these. On 22-11-72, the Enforcement Officer, Banswara went to the place of the petitioner, where his son was found. On a search, 1532 kg Sal, 2558 kg Maize, 80 kg gram and 420kg Wheat was recovered. During the search, some account books containing entries of sale of good-grains were also recovered. A complaint was, therefore, filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Banswara for the offences under sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution examined various witnesses in support of prosecution and the defence of the petitioner was that he was not carrying on any business in food grains and was an agriculturist. He examined two witnesses in defence. The trial court disbelieved the defence evidence and found that the petitioner was guilty of the violation of Clause 3 of the Rajasthan Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') and, therefore, convicted him under sec. 3/7 of the Act, and sentenced him to 6 months simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which further simple imprisonment for 2 months. The trial court held that because of the presumption arising under Clause 3 (2) of the order, the petitioner is deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer. Under Clause 3(1) no person can carry on business as a dealer except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. It was not disputed before the trial court that the petitioner had no licence. His defence was that he stored these food grains produced by him by personal cultivation and he did not engage in the business of purchase or sale of food-grains. 3. The trial court and the appellate court negatived the defence and came to the conclusion with the help of the presumption under Clause 3(2) of the order that the petitioner was carrying on business of food grains as a dealer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 5. It is again contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below were in error in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was carrying on business in food grains as a dealer. The courts below further wrongly concluded that the food-grains recovered from his possession were not produced by him by personal cultivation. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to various witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. Before proceeding further, I may observe that 1532 kg of Sal (Paddy) was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Clause 2(aa) of the Order and Clause 3 of the Order read as under: "2. Definitions: In this order, unless the context otherwise requires. "2(aa). "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale storage for sale of any one of the food-grains quantity of ten quintals or more at any one time, or in quantity of twenty-five quintals or more of all food grains taken together and includes a commission Agent but does not include a person who : (i) Stores any food grains produced by him by personal cultivation; and (ii) Does not engage in the business of purchase or sale of food-grains; 3. Licensing of Dealers: (1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. (2) For the purpose of this clause any person who stores any food grains in quantity of ten quintals of more or any one of the food grains or twenty-five quintals of all food grains taken together at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be carrying on business as carrying on business as a dealer. P.W. 3 Chunnilal, District Supply Officer stated that on 22-11-72, he with Tehsildar Chotala and enforcement officer Sewadass went to the shop of Adam and recovered the following quantity of food-grains from there- 1532 Kg. of Sale (Paddy) 2558 Kg. of Maize 80 Kg. of gram 420 Kg. of Wheat. Adam had no licence with him. Account books of the shop were also examined, which contained entries regarding the sale and purchase of the food-grains. of Sale (Paddy) 2558 Kg. of Maize 80 Kg. of gram 420 Kg. of Wheat. Adam had no licence with him. Account books of the shop were also examined, which contained entries regarding the sale and purchase of the food-grains. PW 2 Kanhaiyalal also deposed about the said recoveries. However, he stated that he could not say whether Adam was an agriculturist. He never saw Adam dealing in food-grains. PW 2 Dhulji also stated similarly and added that Adam was doing cultivation and he had 15 bighas of land. PW 3 Chunni Lal deposed about the recoveries and various entries of the sale and purchase of food grains in the account books and further stated that Adam produced khasra Girdawari before him but it was not in his name. Adam informed that the land was mortgaged with him. However, the witness admitted that he never saw the petitioner dealing in food grains. The statement of PW 4 Sewadass is also similar. PW 5 Hakaria stated that the petitioner was engaged in cultivation and did not deal in food grains. To the same effect, is the statement of PW 6 Punia. DW 1 Gaurishankar and DW 2 Chokha also deposed similarly. The courts below held that even if Adam had some agricultural land, produce from it could not be to the extent of 45 quintal. Both the courts below relied upon the presumption that arises under clause 3(2) of the Order and held that it was not rebutted by this evidence. I see no reason to take a different view. Khasara Girdhari does indicate that paddy was cultivated. That apart, none of the witnesses had deposed that the petitioner produced sal (paddy). The paddy recovered was more than 10 quintals, and this could not be the fruit of personal cultivation of the petitioner. Therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner stored paddy produced by his personal cultivation. That apart, a person is not a dealer, when he stores any food-grains produce by him by personal cultivation and does not engage in the business of purchase or sale of food-grains. The entries in the account books corroborates the presumption that the petitioner was carrying on business in food-grains as a dealer. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 6. The entries in the account books corroborates the presumption that the petitioner was carrying on business in food-grains as a dealer. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 6. I, therefore, find no source in this revision and dismiss the same. The petitioner is on bail and he shall surrender to his bail-bonds and serve out the sentence awarded to him.Revision dismissed. *******