JUDGMENT Ram Nandan Prasad, J. The present application is directed against the order dated 2.1.1984 whereby the learned Special Judge, Saharsa, has taken cognizance against the petitioner of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Further prayer is to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the case. 2. According to the prosecution case, the Circle Officer of Chousa, District Saharsa, accompanied by an Assistant inspected the godown of the petitioner in Chousa Bazar and found that the petitioner had stored 25 bags of paddy, 23 bags of oil seeds and five bags of maize and he also found 200 empty bags in (he godown. In the opinion of the Circle Officer, Chousa, Storing of such quantity of foodgrains without licence amounted to violation of the provision of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules (sic) framed thereunder. He, therefore, filed a written report at Chousa Police Station (Chousa Police Station Case No. 74 of 1983). The police in due course submitted charge-sheet and, therefore, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order took cognizance against the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he challenges the alleged findings of the Circle Officer regarding the presence of the articles in his godown. It has been also contended on his behalf that even if the facts as alleged are accepted, no offence is made out. It has been submitted that even according to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the petitioner is said to have been merely storing the aforesaid amount of food grains, namely, 25 bags of paddy, 23 bags of oil seeds and five bags of maize. Oil seeds do not come under the purview of foodgrains under the Essential Commodities Act and no licence is required for storing oil seeds. It was submitted that the petitioner an agriculturist was keeping the food grains in his premises for his own consumption. Oil seeds do not come under the purview of foodgrains under the Essential Commodities Act and no licence is required for storing oil seeds. It was submitted that the petitioner an agriculturist was keeping the food grains in his premises for his own consumption. It has been submitted that even though under sub clause (2) of clause 3 of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, a presumption may arise that the aforesaid amount of foodgrains, being more than 10 quintals had been stored for the purpose of sale, yet mere storage does not amount to an offence and that the person is required to hold licence only when he carries on business, either as a wholesale dealer or retail dealer. The argument is that even according to the allegations in the F.I.R. the petitioner was merely found to store the aforesaid articles and there is absolutely no materials to indicate that the alleged storage was for carrying on business as a dealer. In support of his contention reference has been made in the case of Sitaram Kedia v. State of Bihar reported in 1983 P.L.J.R. 194. 4. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if for a moment he been deemed to be a dealer, still the amount of food grains which are said to have been found in his godown will come within the exemption limit for a retail dealer and, as such, in any view no licence was required to be taken for the quantity of foodgrains found in his godown. In this connection, attention, has been drawn to sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of the aforesaid order. This clause gives the definition of 'retail dealer' and from this definition it is clear that a person shall be deemed to be a retail dealer, if he stores for sale foodgrains of all kinds not exceeding 20 quintals. The submission is that in the present case the total amount of foodgrains, which are said to have been found by the Circle Officer in the P.O. godown, was less than 20 quintals. It has been pointed out that there is nothing to show that the bags in question, which were found lying in the god own were weighed; indeed they were not even seized. It has been contended that as per normal practice, a bag of paddy contains about 60 kg. It has been pointed out that there is nothing to show that the bags in question, which were found lying in the god own were weighed; indeed they were not even seized. It has been contended that as per normal practice, a bag of paddy contains about 60 kg. of the foodgrains and a bag of maize contains about 80 kg. of the food grain and, as such, the total weight of the paddy and maize would be less than 20 quintals. 1t has been argued that in any view of the matter the petitioner was not required to take any licence in respect of the foodgrains found in his godown and, as such, no offence can be said to have been made out. 5. The learned State counsel drew my attention to the various provisions of the Control Order and rightly and fairly accepted that in view of sub-clause (b) of clause 2, 20 quintals of foodgrains can be kept by any person without any licence. 6. For the reasons stated above, I allow this application and set aside the impugned order and quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. The application thus stands allowed. Application allowed.