S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS were charged under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for having contravened Cl. 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order' ). ( 2 ) ON assessment of the materials on record, the trial Court found the petitioners guilty, convicted them for the offence charged and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The seized paddy was directed to be confiscated. In appeal, the conviction and the sentence having been confirmed the present criminal revision has been filed. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case is that the petitioners were in possession of 35. 25 quintals of paddy which was seized from the mill premises belonging to petitioner No. 1 of which petitioner No. 2 was the manager. ( 4 ) THE plea of the petitioners is that different persons who were their customers gave the paddy for milling. Added to it, petitioner No. 1 took the plea that he was not present at the time of seizure. ( 5 ) THE Control Order has been issued under S. 3 of the Act. A dealer under the Control Order is a person who purchases, sells or stores in wholesale quantity rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together. Storage in wholesale quantity is defined in Cl. 2 (f) of the Control Order. It reads as follows :" (F) 'storage in wholesale quantity' means storage of rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together in quantity - (i) exceeding ten quintals at a time inside the State of Orissa excluding the border area; and (ii) exceeding two quintals inside the border area"clause 3 (2) of the Control Order provides that a person shall be deemed to be a dealer where he stores quantity of the article beyond the permissible limits. It reads as follows :" (2) For the purpose of this clause any person who stores rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together in quantity exceeding ten quintals inside the State of Orissa excluding the border area and exceeding two quintals inside the border area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer. " ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners have no licence under the Control Order and they were in possession of 35. 25 quintals of paddy. It is to be examined whether this amounts to storage in wholesale quantity by a dealer. ( 7 ) MR. S. K. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that possession would not amount to storage. He relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (1977) 44 Cut LT 629, Prem Bahadur v. State of Orissa. This Court was considering the case of transport of paddy in that case. In that context, it was observed :"the Orissa Order does not make possession without a licence an offence. Storage, however, has been made an offence. Between 'possession' and 'storage' some elements may be common and therefore it would be appropriate to say that in all instances of storage there would be possession. Yet all possession may not amount to storage. 'storage' in the common parlance meaning connotes the concept of continued possession. There is an element of continuity of possession spread over some time and the concept is connected with the idea of a regular place of storage. Transhipment in a moving vehicle would not amount to storage within the meaning of the Orissa Order. . . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied)THE said decision would have no application to the present case, since on facts the case of the petitioners that various customers gave the paddy for milling has been disbelieved. ( 8 ) MR. S. Kr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the evidence of D. W. 2 and the entry in Ext. A would clearly show that the paddy seized was in the custody of the petitioners for the purpose of milling and does not amount to storage. Petitioner No. 2 as D. W. 1 stated that out of the paddy seized, some was boiled for the purpose of milling and the balance was in bags. Ext. A shows that the paddy delivered for milling was in bags. There is no indication in the seizure list that the paddy seized was in bags or was being boiled. P. W. 2, the Inspector of Supplies, has not stated so. Added to it, the name of D. W. 2 does not find place in Ext. A. His evidence is not acceptable. There is no indication in the seizure list that the paddy seized was in bags or was being boiled. P. W. 2, the Inspector of Supplies, has not stated so. Added to it, the name of D. W. 2 does not find place in Ext. A. His evidence is not acceptable. The other persons alleged to have delivered the paddy for milling have not been examined. Accordingly, the trial Court and the appellate court rightly did not rely upon those entries in Ext. A and the evidence of D. W. 2. ( 9 ) UNDER S. 14 of the Act, burden of proof lies on the person who has been prosecuted. The nature of the stock is within the special knowledge of the petitioners. They are required to prove the same. When they have taken a specific plea which has been disbelieved, the burden of proof has not been discharged by them and the deeming provision under sub-cl. (2) of Cl. 3 of the Control Order is attracted. ( 10 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the decision reported in (1974) 40 Cut LT 478, (State of Orissa v. Rama Chandra Patra) was relied upon in support of the plea that the contravention was not intentional. The said decision would have no application in view of non-explanation of the plea taken by the petitioners. The petitioners have not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under Cl. 3 (2 ). Element of business is essential under Cl. 3 of the Control Order. The person who is found to be in possession of paddy of more than ten quintals will be presumed to be engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of paddy. Where the presumption is not rebutted, it must follow that he is a dealer. Once he is a dealer and has no licence, Cl. 3 of the Control Order is contravened an liability under S. 7 is attracted. My view is supported by the decision reported in (1972) 38 Cut LT 556, Gobindaram Agarwalla v. State. So far as mens rea is concerned, it is no doubt true that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that there must be some blameworthy conduct or mens rea in an accused before he is found guilty of an offence. My view is supported by the decision reported in (1972) 38 Cut LT 556, Gobindaram Agarwalla v. State. So far as mens rea is concerned, it is no doubt true that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that there must be some blameworthy conduct or mens rea in an accused before he is found guilty of an offence. Where, however, a person has contravened the provision and in spite of the burden of proof under S. 14 of the Act is not able to discharge the same by explaining under what circumstances he me into possession, the presumption for rebuttal under Cl. 3 (2) is attracted. The statute having clearly ruled out mens rea to be a constituent part of the crime effect has to be given to the same. In Cl. 3 of the Control Order there is absolute prohibition for carrying on the business without licence. Where the petitioners are presumed to have carried on the business land have admittedly no licence, the offence is made out. ( 11 ) NOW coming to the question of sentence, it is to be noticed that the offence was committed on 23-8-1974. The prosecution report was submitted on 14-3-1975, about seven months after. Cognizance was taken on 11-5-1976, i. e. , more than one year after the prosecution report was submitted. Evidence of P. W. 1 before charge was recorded on 25-2-1977, nearly one. year thereafter. On 27-8-1980, more than three years after, the Inspector of Supplies, appeared and was examined and on that date charge was framed against the petitioners. The charge was also not signed by the learned Magistrate for which at the close of the trial, the learned trying Magistrate framed the charge again. P. W. 1 was cross-examined after the charge on 22-7-1981 and the statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded on 12-4-1982 on which date the defence witnesses were examined. The trial Court delivered the judgement on 1-5-1982 after about eight years of the violation of the Control Order. In this Court the petitioners were permitted to surrender at Cuttack on account of their illness which was supported by medical certificates. In the premises, no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioners to be taken to custody any further for serving the sentence. In this Court the petitioners were permitted to surrender at Cuttack on account of their illness which was supported by medical certificates. In the premises, no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioners to be taken to custody any further for serving the sentence. These are the special resons where ends of justice would be best served in case the petitioners are directed to serve the substantive sentence for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each. In default to pay the fine within the time to be stipulated by the trial Court, each of the petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. ( 12 ) IN the result, subject to the modification of the sentence, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Order accordingly. .