A. K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS case demonstrates how the State has indulged in wasteful expenditure by launching a prosecution for alleged minor technical violation of Para 3 (2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and conditions of licence under West Bengal Pulses and Edible Oils (Dealer Licensing) Order, 1978. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that on 9/11/83 at about 10-30 A. M. District Enforcement Officer along with some other police personnel checked the shop-cum-godown of accused Gouranga Chandra Rudra situated at holding No. 37, Ward No. 6, Rathtola, P. S. Ranaghat in presence of public witnesses after getting some information about clandestine deal in respect of Rapeseed oil and sugar. The accused was present during inspection, There was a stock-cum-price board displayed in the shop where different commodities like Ata, Salt, different types of pulses were mentioned besides Rapeseed Oil to the extent of 1135 tins. On a scrutiny of the licence, it appeared that the accused was authorised carry on business of edible oil fry the said holding. A physical verification of the articles found in the shop was made. But no rapeseed oil was found in that shop-cum-godown. After interrogation, Tusar Kanti Bose, an employee of the accused, led the police party to another godown situated in front of a rented house belonging to Paresh Goswami. The said godown was opened by the employee and the police party found the entire quantity of rapeseed oil, namely, 1135 tins kept in that godown. All the tins were of standard size. The accused failed to produce any document authorising him to keep rapeseed oil in that godown. As he violated the conditions of licence for edible oil, the entire quantity of oil along with some documents were seized by police under a seizure list. The accused was put under arrest. The same day a written complaint was made at Ranaghat Police Station at 5-50 P. M. for alleged violation of paragraph 3 (2) of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and also of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. The charge-sheet was submitted under section 7 (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act on February 18, 1984. The charge-sheet was submitted under section 7 (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act on February 18, 1984. ( 3 ) THE defence of the accused was that accommodation in his shop-cum-godown was not sufficient for keeping such large quantity of Rapeseed Oil which was allotted to him before the Pujari for distribution and that he applied to the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies), Ranaghat, for a direction to keep the said articles in another adjacent godown. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge found that the accused did not violate any provisions of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977. The finding is that the displaying of stock-cum-price list in terms of the said order was not required so far as Rapeseed Oil was concerned. However, he held that by storing of the entire quantity of Rape-seed Oil, namely, 1135 tins in a place other than the one mentioned in the licence, the accused violated the condition of licence as well as West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. Accordingly, he convicted him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also directed forfeiture of the seized goods. ( 5 ) THE appeal in directed against the said conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) THE gist of the charge is that although according to the stock book and stock register, 1135 tins of rapeseed oil ought to have been in the shop-cum-godown, the stock was not available there, which in fact was found in an adjacent godown, for which there was no licence and no stock-cum-price board displayed in the place where the oil tins were found. ( 7 ) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the facts leading to the conviction and sentence of the accused, it is necessary, to set out the relevant provisions of the orders which have allegedly been violated by the appellant. Under the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 no person having stock exceeding 5 quintals of all types of edible oil shall engage in a business except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted in this behalf by the licensed authority. Under the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 no person having stock exceeding 5 quintals of all types of edible oil shall engage in a business except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted in this behalf by the licensed authority. A separate licence shall be necessary for such place of business. The material conditions of the licence are as follows:1. Subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 and to the terms and conditions of the licence, Messrs/shri ???. son/wife/daughter of ???. . proprietor/partner/lessees/manager/secretary/director of ????. . is/are hereby authorised to carry on the business of purchase/sale/storage for sale of pulses/edible oilseeds/edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oils as a wholesaler/retailer at his place of business under the name of ???? at ?????. ( 8 ) THE licensee shall give all facilities at all reasonable times to the licensing authority or any officer authorised by it or the Government the inspection of his stocks and accounts at any shop, godown or other place used by him for the storage, safe or purchase for sale of pulses, edible oilseeds or edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oils and for the taking of samples for examination" ( 9 ) THE only ground on which the learned Judge proceeded to hold the accused guilty way that although the accused was entitled to carry on business of purchase, sale and storage fear sale of rapeseed oil only from holding No. 37, Ward No. 6 of Ranaghat Municipality, he was not authorised either to keep rapeseed oil or make any or effect any sale from any other premises. It was not disputed that the accused stored the articles in a different holding for which he had no separate licence. No doubt there has been a technical violation by the accused as observed by the learned Judge We have to consider in this case whether the petitioner had any mens rea to violate the condition of licence. In this connection we have to refer to two letters one dated 7th October, 1983 and the other dated 8th November, 1983 written to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat by the accused. Copies of those two letters were tendered in evidence without any objection. In this connection we have to refer to two letters one dated 7th October, 1983 and the other dated 8th November, 1983 written to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat by the accused. Copies of those two letters were tendered in evidence without any objection. The cases of the prosecution was that those two letters were not found in their sale. But those two letters were sent by Certificate of Posting and since those were tendered in evidence without any objection. The prosecution could not dispute the authenticity of those two letters. In the letter dated 7th November, 1983 the accused said that his office room was very small and since the quota of rapeseed oil was likely to be doubled, it would not be possible for him to keep the entire stock at the present holding. He has a godown adjacent to his shop room which is larger in area. Accordingly, he sought permission for storing the rapeseed oil in the adjacent godown. Again he reminded on 8th November, 1983 asking for permission but such permission was neither accorded nor withheld There is another aspect of the matter. The stock register which was also tendered in evidence would show that the petitioner received on 7th-November, 1983, 1135 tins of rapeseed oil from Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. , under delivery order dated 3rd November, 1983, The Stock Book was inspected by the Inspector who upon physical verification made the following remarks in the stock register:"seen, sd/- Illegible 8th November, 1983. " ( 10 ) IT is not the case of the prosecution that the goods were not found at all. The Inspector upon inspection found the stock in tact. He did not make any remark Thereafter on 9th November, 1983, the search was conducted and the prosecution was launched as we have already indicated. ( 11 ) IN our view when the application is made for permission to store the stock in an adjacent godown and no reply is received from the authorities, it cannot be said that by storing in an adjacent godown for which no separate licence was issued, the accused had any mens rea to violate either the condition of the licence or the condition of the Dealers Licensing Order. The conduct of the accused exclude any intention to commit any breach of the provision of Licensing Order The authorities have power to permit the petitioner to store goods temporarily in a place other than the place of business mentioned in the licence having regard to the fact and circumstances of a case. There was no intimation that his application was rejected. In such a case he may reasonably has the belief that permission has been given to him to store the essential commodities to an adjacent godown legally for a temporary period. He could not therefore be said to have contravened the provisions of the said Order. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal and the sentence and conviction are set aside. The appellant is discharged from bail bond J. N. Hore, J. , I agree. Appeal allowed.