JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. This revisional application is directed against the proceeding, initiated against the petitioner under s. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has not pressed his challenge in respect of the proceeding, initiated under the Essential Commodities Act. He has only confined his argument on the validity of initiation of the proceedings under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From the accusation made against the petitioner, it appears that he distributed rationed commodities to card holders who were subsequently found to have died before the rationed commodities were sold. On such accusation, the proceedings have been initiated under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bose has drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ghasiram Agarwala v. State reported in AIR 1967 Cal. 568 . In that case the accused was a retailer, who by an agreement with the State Government entitled ‘Agreement for distribution of wheat through Fair Price Shops’ had agreed to sell wheat during shop hours to consumers within the zone at a certain retail rate fixed by the Government. The wheat was delivered by the Government to the retailer on his deposit of price of wheat at the agreed wholesale rate. At one stage, by night time, the retailer removed some bags of wheat from the shop and thereafter possibly apprehensive of adverse consequences brought them back to his shop. He was charged under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that the accused must be acquitted even of the offence of attempt to commit criminal breach of trust and that the property in the stock of wheat received by the retailer under the agreement did pass to him. 4. It appears that the petitioner, who is an M.R. dealer, has obtained the ration commodities from the Government on payment of price and, accordingly, he became the owner of such stock. The allegation, that the petitioner purchased the stock but he did not sell the stock in accordance with this condition of the licence, does not constitute an offence under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code, even if the allegations are taken to be true. The allegation, that the petitioner purchased the stock but he did not sell the stock in accordance with this condition of the licence, does not constitute an offence under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code, even if the allegations are taken to be true. Accordingly, in our view since the petitioner is the owner of the stock which was sold to him by the Government, there cannot by any question of dishonest misappropriation of his own property and in that view of the matter, the proceeding initiated under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed. 5. The Rule is made absolute to the extent that the proceedings under s. 403 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed but the proceedings under s. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 shall proceed. Record, of the case be sent down forthwith. J.N. Hore, J.: I agree. Rule made absolute in part; proceedings u/s. 403 IPC quashed; the case sent back with the direction to proceed with the proceedings u/s 7(1)(a)(i) of EC Act.