R. G. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS 1 to 6 were accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively in C. C. No. 414/81 on the file of the J. M. F. C. Bantwal. They were tried for an offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act) read with clause 3 (1) of the Karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing Order 1977 (for short the Order) for being in possession of 15. 16 quintals of pulses on 15-11-1980 when their business premises, at Pane-Mangalore was searched by P. W. 2 without valid license. ( 2 ) AS the accuseds denied the commission of the offence, P. Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs. p. i to p. 9 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 were produced on behalf of the accuseds to show that they had applied for a license on 10-11-1977 and 23-1-1978 as per Exs. D. 1 and D. 2 for grant of license after paying necessary fees. ( 3 ) ACCEPTING the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accuseds for the said offence and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The appeal of the accuseds against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. Hence, this revision petition by the accused. ( 4 ) FROM Ex. p. 3 it is clear that the accuseds are the partners of the firm called M/s. P. Iddinabba and Bros. , at Door No. 196, Panemangalore, Bantwal taluk and that the firm is doing business in provisions and general articles in retail and wholesale. On 15-11-1980 P. W. 2 and others searched the business premises of the accused at about 2. 30 p. m. and found that there was a stock of 9 quintals of Horsegram, 4 quintals of Uriddhal, one quintal of Bengalgram, one quintal of Moongdhal, and 16 Kgs. Of Toordhal i. e. , in all 15. 16 quintals of pulses. They seized the said pulses under a mahazar (Ex. p. 2 ). A case was registered for the contravention of clause (3) of the order punishable under section 7 of the Act and the accuseds were charge-sheeted after completing the investigation. ( 5 ) MR. Of Toordhal i. e. , in all 15. 16 quintals of pulses. They seized the said pulses under a mahazar (Ex. p. 2 ). A case was registered for the contravention of clause (3) of the order punishable under section 7 of the Act and the accuseds were charge-sheeted after completing the investigation. ( 5 ) MR. B. V. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged two points. Firstly, he urged that in view of the conduct of the accuseds in applying for grant of license as per Exs. D. 1 and D. 2, it cannot be said that they had the requisite mens rea and so they have not committed any offence. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. In the said case, while dealing with clause (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, punishable under section 7 of the Act, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe thus: (per majority judgment) An offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 10 of 1955, for breach of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, necessarily involves a guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence. Considering the scope of the Act, it would be legitimate to hold that an offence under section 7 of the Act is committed by a penon if he intentionally contravenes any order made under section 3 of the Act. The object of the Act will be best served and innocent per sons will also be protected from harassment if section 7 is so construed The accused, a dealer in foodgrains, ha made an application for a license under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, and had also deposited the requisite license fee. There was, however, no intimation to him that his application was rejected. He purchased foodgrains from time to time and submitted returns to the licensing authority showing the grains purchased by him. The Inspector checked the godowns of the accused and found that the accused had stored foodgrains without holding any licensee in excess of the quantity permitted by section 3 of the Order. The accused was prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 That on the facts of the case the conviction of the accused should be set aside. The accused was prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 That on the facts of the case the conviction of the accused should be set aside. The accused was under a bona-fide impression that the license in regard to which he had made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. It was under this impression that he had stored the grain. The fact that the licensing authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application confirmed the accuseds belief. It was on that belief that he stored the food-grains and was sending the relevant returns to the concerned, authority. It was, therefore, a storage of food-grains within the prescribed limits under a bona fide belief that he could legally, do so. He could not therefore, be said to have intentionally contravened the provisions of the Act or those of the order made under section 7 of the Act. ( 6 ) MR. Sabhahit, learned High Court Government Pleader, urged that the license under the order could be granted only for one year ending with 31st December of that year and as the accuseds in this case have not filed any application during 1979 and 1980 they could not have been under the belief that they could get license for the relevant year and so the decision relied upon by Sri Acharya is not applicable to the facts of this case and in view of the presumption arising under section 10 (c) of the Act, the accuseds shall be deemed to have contravened clause 3 of the order. ( 7 ) AFTER going through (he provisions of the order I see considerable force in the contention of Mr. Sabhahit. According to clause 5 of the Order, every license issued under the order shall be valid for a period ending with the 31st December of the year in which it is issued and may be renewed for a further period of one year at a time. From the material on record, it is clear that the accuseds have not filed any application for license or for renewal during 1979 and 1980. Therefore, they could not have been under the belief that they would get a license during 1980 when their premises was raided. From the material on record, it is clear that the accuseds have not filed any application for license or for renewal during 1979 and 1980. Therefore, they could not have been under the belief that they would get a license during 1980 when their premises was raided. The decision of this Court, relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, in M. A. Usman v. State of Mysore2 and State of Karnataka v. Lobo Medicals3 are not applicable to the facts of the present case because, in those cases their Lordships were dealing with section 7 of the Act as it stood then which contained the words who ever intentionally or knowingly or otherwise contravenes. But, illsection 7 (1) of the Act, as it now stands, those words are not there. It is not disputed that 15 16 quintals of pulses were found in the business premises of the firm on 15-11-1980. So, the firm has contravened clause 3 of the Order punishable under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, I see no force in the said contention of Mr. Acharya. ( 8 ) THE second contention of Mr. Acharya is that according to section 10 of the Act it is only the Managing Partner who would be committing the offence as the offence bas been committed by the firm and as the Partnership Deed (Ex. P. 3) shows that accused No. 1 was the Managing Partner responsible for the management of the firm. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to section 10 of the Act, if the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a firm, every person who at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm as well as the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. From clause 8 of the Partnership Deed (Ex. P. 3) it is clear that the first accused Iddinabba is the Managing Partner of the firm. He alone will be contravening the order as the firm has not been prosecuted. It is not even alleged that the other partners consented or connived at the commission of the said offence or that the said offence was attributable to any neglect on their part. Merely because accused Nos. He alone will be contravening the order as the firm has not been prosecuted. It is not even alleged that the other partners consented or connived at the commission of the said offence or that the said offence was attributable to any neglect on their part. Merely because accused Nos. 2 to 6 were present at the time of the search, it cannot be said that they consented or connived at the commission of the said offence, especially as the firm was dealing in foodgrains, sugar and cement after obtaining valid license. Therefore, the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition of petitioner No. 1 is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed on him are confirmed and the petition of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on them are set aside and they are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine, if paid by them shall be refunded to them. Revision partly allowed