JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioner was charged u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 and Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 as well as Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and therefore, convicted him of the offence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprison ment for two months and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred, indefault to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. On appeal, the learned sessions Judge came to the conclusion in disagreement with the conclusion of the Trial Magistrate that the prosecution had failed to establish that Petitioner violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. He, however, affirmed the conclusion of the learned Trial Magistrate that the Petitioner had contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and therefore, upheld the conviction of the Petitioner and confirmed the sentence passed thereunder by the learned Magistrate. Hence the present revision. 2. So far as the violation of the provisions of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order is concerned, the prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence, 21.40 quintals of rice was seized from the premises of the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner must be held to be a 'dealer' but he could not produce any licence for carrying on the business in rice. The plea of the accused was that out of the rice seized, 13.80 quintals belonged to two different persons who had kept their rice there and had gone to see picture and therefore, it could not be said that those 13.80 quintals of rice was seized from the possession of the Petitioner. 3. Under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, which has been issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act a 'dealer' means a person who purchases, sells or stores in wholesale quantity rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together. 3. Under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, which has been issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act a 'dealer' means a person who purchases, sells or stores in wholesale quantity rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together. 'Storage in wholesale quantity' has been defined in Clause 2(f) of the said Order to mean storage of rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together in quantity exceeding ten quintals at a time inside the State of Orissa excluding the border area and exceeding two quintals inside the border area. In the case in hand, admittedly the place from where the rice has been seized not being a border area, the provisions would be attracted only if the quantity seized exceeds 10 quintals. Under Clause 3 of the said Order no person can act as a dealer except under and in accordance with the licence issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. Admittedly, the Petitioner had no licence as required under the Order. The Petitioner contends that since out of the rice seized, 13.80 quintals of rice does not belong to him, it must be held that there was no storage in wholesale quantity since the balance stock in question does not exceed ten quintals. This plea has been negatived by both the courts below. Mr. Dey appearing for the Petitioner contends that the two defence witnesses adduced in this case have been illegally rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on a mis-reading of the statement of the accused. According to Mr. Dey, the statement of the accused and the evidence of P.Ws. corroborate the evidence of the D.Ws. It is the positive case of the two defence witnesses that they had kept the rice at that place and had gone out. P.W. 1 had also stated in cross-examination that on the verandah people used to sit and sell different commodities including rice. P.W. 4 stated in cross-examination that there was open space in front of the shop of the accused and it was there that the rice bags were kept in the open space in front of the shop. These statements to a great extent corroborated the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and support the defence plea. P.W. 4 stated in cross-examination that there was open space in front of the shop of the accused and it was there that the rice bags were kept in the open space in front of the shop. These statements to a great extent corroborated the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and support the defence plea. There is nothing in the statement of the accused which runs contrary to the aforesaid defence plea and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the evidence of the D.Ws. on the ground that it runs contrary to the statement of accused in his examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the fact that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4, referred to above, corroborates the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, in my opinion the evidence of the two D.Ws. must be accepted and it must be held that out of the rice seized, 13.80 quintals belonged to the two defence witnesses. If that is excluded from the quantity of rice seized, then the balance amount of rice would not attract the provisions of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order since the Petitioner will not be a 'dealer' as defined in Clause 2(b) of the said Order as he has not stored in wholesale quantity rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together exceeding ten quintals at a time. In view of my aforesaid conclusion, the conviction of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 4. I would accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner and acquit him of the charge levelled against him. This Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner stand cancelled. Final Result : Allowed