A. K. PADHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS crirninal revision has been referred to a Division Bench to decide the correctness of the decisions in Prem Bahadur v. State of Orissa, Harirarn Agarwala v. State of Orissa, Panu Saboto v. State of Orissa. In two earlier decisions i. e. in Balabhadra Raja Guru mohapatra v. State and Gobindaram Agarawala v. State, the word storage was interpreted and their Lordship have held that storage in vessel can also be storage. In the later decisions reported in 44 (1977) C. L. T. 629 the earlier decisions have not been noticed. The decision in Balabhadra Raja Guru Mohopatra v. The State (supra) being a Division Bench decision, by rule of precedence should have been followed. As the principle decided in A. I. R. 1954 Orissa 95-XIX (1958) C. L. T. 439 (supra) and the later decision following 44 (1977) C. L. T. 629 are contrary to each other to some extent, it was felt necessary for reference to a Division Bench to examine the correctness of there later decisions. ( 2 ) THE point of reference is whether paddy loaded in a truck in excess of the permissible limit while on transit shall be deemed to be storage within the meaning of the provisions of Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Order ). It is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the Order for proper interpretation. The Order has been amended in 1984. The question is of before amendment. In clause 2 (b) of the Order dealer has been defined as follows:dealer means any person who purchases, sells or stores in wholesale quantity rice or paddy or rice and paddy taken together, provided that if such a person happens to be a cultivator or landlord he shall not be deemed to be a dealer in respect of rice or paddy being the produce of the land cultivated or owned by him. In clause 2 (j) storage in wholesale quantity has been defined as under: 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 areas, and (ii) exceeding two quintals inside the border areas. In clause 2 (j) storage in wholesale quantity has been defined as under: 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 areas, and (ii) exceeding two quintals inside the border areas. Clause 3 of the Order is as follows: licensing of persons- (1) No person shall act as a dealer except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing authority:provided that the Government may, by a special or general order, exempt, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, any class or person from the operation of this Sub-clause, (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 act as a dealer. Interpreting all the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that a person cannot store rice or paddy in excess of the permissible limit without a valid licence issued in that behalf by the licensing authority and if he does so, he shall be deemed to be a dealer acting without a valid licence and therefore punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of clause-3 of the Order. In the case of Balabhada Raja Guru Mohapratra v. The State (supra) the petitioner was found carrying 50 bags-100 maunds of ragi in a truck on 4. 8. 195u. He had no valid licence for transportation of ragi. The question which arose before their Lordship was whether possession of goods while on transit in a truck could be described as storage within the meaning of the Orissa Food grains Control Orders, 1947 the contravention of which is punishable under the provisions of Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947, Interpreting the expression storage, panigrahi, J. (as his Lordship then was) spoke for the Court and held as follows: the next question is whether his possession of the goods while in transit in a truck can be described as storage within the meaning of the Control Order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said fil storage does not necessarily mean stocking in a house or at a particular place. Its ordinary dictionary meaning is the placing in a store. There may be a case in which a seller may be carrying goods for purpose of Sale in a vessel and may be selling all along the route. It cannot be said that, the goods kept by him are not stored by him. I would, therefore, agree with the Sessions Judge that the kind of the goods in the truck was a storage within the meaning of the Control Order. What the order prohibits is storage in wholesale quantities which means storage in quanti ties exceeding 20 maunds for purpose of sale. But clause 111 (2) prescribes that where any person is found storing in quantities exceeding 50 maunds, he shall, unless the contrary is proved be deemed to store food-grains for the purpose of sale. We cannot therefore escape from the conclusion that the storage by the petitioner was for purpose of sale apart from the evidence in the case. 80th the Courts have held as a fact that the petitioner was transporting goods for sale within the Madras area. In 38 (1972) C. L. T. 556 (supra), the petitioner was transporting 67 quintals of rice in a truck. The plea of the petitioner was that the entire stock did not belong to him, but belonged to several other persons. The plea of the petitioner was disbelieved and his Lordship has held the resultant position, therefore, is that whenever any person is found to be in possession of rice of more than ten quintals it will be presumed that he is a person who is engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of rice. Doubtless, it is a rebuttal presumption, but if the presumption is not rebutted by the accused, it must follow that he is a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage of rice. In this case, as the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption arising against him, he must be deemed to be a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage of rice. In this case, as the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption arising against him, he must be deemed to be a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage of rice. In Prem Bahadurs case 44 (1977) C. L. T. 629 taking a different view his Lordship held-The charge in this case against the petitioner is that he had stored rice against the permissible limit at the time of detection without a licence. The question for consideration therefore is as to whether prosecution has been able to establish storage by the petitioner. Storage has not been defined and, therefore would have the common parlance meaning for the term. Before we proceed to adopt the common parlance meaning, there was certain feature in the Orissa Order itself which may be considers the Orissa Order does not make possession without a licence an offence Storage, however has been made an offence. Between possessiont and storage some elements may be common and therefore it 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 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. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner that the prescription being storage possessing the stock of rice within a moving truck would not satisfy the element which is an offence. In the circumstances, in law, the charge is not established against the petitioner. In this decision, his Lordship has not noticed the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court. The above principle which has been decided in 1977 C. L. T. 629 has been consistently followed in the later decisions of this Court in 45 (1978) C. L. T. 51, 56 (1978) C. L. T. 192 and 1978 Cri. L. J, 686. ( 3 ) IN K J. Aiyers Judicial Dictionary the word storage is interpreted thus; this word is of large amplitude covering all kinds of storages maintained under different conditions for different purposes. L. J, 686. ( 3 ) IN K J. Aiyers Judicial Dictionary the word storage is interpreted thus; this word is of large amplitude covering all kinds of storages maintained under different conditions for different purposes. In Wobester's Third New International Dictionary, the meaning of storage is: space for storing: a place for storing; an amount stored an the total amount (as of water in a reservoir) that can be stored in a place; the act of storing or state of being stored; the safe keeping of goods in a ware-house or other depository. In Law Lexicon and Legal Maxims the word storage has been defined thus:the word storage has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as (1) capacity or space for storing; (2) the action of storing or laying up in reservation; the condition or fact of being stored; (3) a place where something is stored The ordinary meaning that would be given to the word storage is a place for storing. That means any place where the goods can be stored, It may be that for different commodities different conditions of storage may be necessary. In Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. Motibag v Prafullachandra Ramachandra oza,6 their Lordships were interpreting the word storage in the context of notification dated 7/3/1962 in the Gazette of India of 1962, Part-II Their Lordships held:storage used in the above notification is of a large amplitude and covers all kinds of storages maintained under different conditions for different purposes. The only primary thing that has to be seen is that it is a place for storage of commodities. In Swantraj and others v. State of Maharashtra7 their Lordships were considering whether storage on ad hoc basis will amount to storage for sale under section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rule 62 of the Rules made there under. The facts of the case were that the petitioners were whole-sale dealers having licence to stock drugs at Bombay and had a further licence to distribute the drugs through motor van throughout the territory of the State of Maharashtra. Their motor van filled with drugs reached the Vidarbba area and was to pick up goods which were due to arrive and distribute them as per instruction under a valid licence. Their motor van filled with drugs reached the Vidarbba area and was to pick up goods which were due to arrive and distribute them as per instruction under a valid licence. The motor van was delayed by about three days and the authorised agent released the goods from the transport operator and temporarily kept them in the godown of a local drugs dealer. The intention was to load the van with those drugs and distribute the drugs as permitted by the licence. Under those facts considered the word storage their lordships held:since risk to life and health is avoided by the later interpretation, we hold that the storage, even though for short spells and on ad hoc basis and without intent to sell at that place but as part of the sales business, comes within the scope of storage for sale in section 18 (c) and Rule 62. To loosen the law on its joints is to play with life and therefore antihumanist. In A. I. R. 1954 Orissa 95 the Division Bench while interpreting the expression storage occurring in Orissa Food-grains Control Order, 1947, Clause 111 (i) of that Order provided that; 111 (i) No person shall engage in any undertaking which involved the purchase, sale or storage for sale in wholesale quantities of any food grains expert under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the Director of Food Supplies. In 1977 C. L. T. 689 and in the later decisions their Lordships interpreted the word storage as occurred in Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. While in the order issued in 1947 it has been provided that no person sham engage in any undertaking (emphasis is mine) which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale in wholesale quantities of any food grains, the order issued in 1965 prohibits a person to set as a dealer except and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The expression no person shall engage in any undertaking which occurs in the order of 1947 is absent in the order of 1965 and this expression, in our opinion, connotes and gives much wider meaning in respect of the word storage and it would clearly mean that whether it be at the god own or at the normal place of business or while in transhipment, no person shall engage in any undertaking in contravention of the terms of the licence. ( 4 ) A penal clause has to be construed strictly and also harmoniously according to the intent of statute. In 1965 Order storage of more than permissible quantity is permissible by a cultivator or a landlord who shall not be deemed to be a dealer. ( 5 ) THE interpretation of the word storage in different orders may have different connotations and the view that transhipment in a truck is storage is correct according to the orders of 1947. The observation of his Lordship in 44 (1977) C. L. T. 629 to the effect transhipment in a moving vehicle is not storage within the meaning of the Orissa Order should be confined to the fact of that case and cannot be taken to be a general proposition of law. For example, there may be cases in which a dealer might be storing rice and paddy beyond the permissible limit in a moving vehicle or vessel for having business from place to place. In that case the moving vehicle or vessel itself will become the storing place of the food grains, as there will be element of continuity of possession spread over some time, The later decisions which followed 44 (1977) C. L. T. 629 can similarly be said to have been decided 011 the facts of their own. After giving our anxious consideration and keeping in view the interpretation of the word storaget from different decisions, We are of the opinion, that under the 1965 Order transhipment in a moving vehicle or vessel will amount to storage. This is however essentially a question of fact to be determined in each case, Keeping in view the scheme of the Central Order of 1965, any person carrying rice or paddy beyond storage limit in a vehicle or vessel will be deemed to be a dealer unless the contrary is proved and the onus is on him to prove the same. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner has been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 on the allegation that he was transporting 124 bags of paddy in a Truck bearing registration No, ORR 2511 and was apprehended near Muniguda. The petitioner could not produce a valid licence for storage of 124 bags of paddy which is more than the permissible limit. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. ( 7 ) THE trial court after considering the evidence on record gave a finding that transporting more than permissible limit of paddy in a truck will come within the scope and ambit of storage and the accused has failed to prove that he is not the owner of the paddy and has thereby violated Clause- 3 of the Order and hence liable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and convicted the petitioner there under and sentenced him to undergo RI. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 in default, to undergo R. I. for three months The finding of the trial court has been confirmed by the appellate court. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record, point of law and the decisions cited above we are of the opinion that the petitioner was transporting 124 bags of paddy in a truck without a valid licence and failed to prove that he was protected under any of the exceptions provided in the 1965 Order. Transhipment of paddy of more than the Permissible limit comes within mischief of storage of Clause-3 of Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 and the petitioner is liable to be convicted under section 7 of the Act. The criminal revision has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .