S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants in the two criminal appeals assail their conviction for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Bijaya was the Managing Director and appellant Bhagaban the Store In-charge-cum Accountant of Large Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society (in short L. A. M. P.), Kundra. On 24. 7. 1986 the officials of the Vigilance Police Station, Berhampur raided the go-down of the Society and found the Books of Account maintained upto 30. 6. 1986 and as per the same there was stock of 10 quintals and 70 K. Gs. of sugar whereas the actual stock stood at 13 quintals 53 K. Gs. and 300 grams. Thus there was excess stock of 2 quintals and 83 K. Gs. of sugar. A case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered at Berhampur Vigilance Police Station against both the appellants and ultimately charge-sheet was filed alleging violation of provisions of Section 3 (1) (a) to (d) of the licensing order 1963 by not maintaining the daily accounts of essential commodities, thereby violated Section 3 (d) of Essential Commodities Act and liable under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge, Koraput, held summary trial and has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants. As to non-maintenance of books of accounts from day to day and particularly from 1. 7. 1986 to 24. 7. 1986, the learned Special Judge held that the same was without any mens rea and the appellants are not guilty of such accusation. He, however, held that appellant Bhagaban being, the agent of appellant Bijaya, both of them are liable for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as by keeping excess stock of 2 quintals 83 Kgs. and 300 grams of sugar they have contravened clause 3 read with clause 7 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 read with condition no. 3 of the Licence which is in contravention of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act. and 300 grams of sugar they have contravened clause 3 read with clause 7 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 read with condition no. 3 of the Licence which is in contravention of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 3 (2) (d) read with Section 5 of the Act, empowered the State Government to issue an order for regulating the licences, permits or otherwise, the storage etc. of any essential commodity. The Governor of Orissa in exercise of powers under section 3 (2) (d) of the Act with the prior concurrence of the Central Government has issued Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. Therefore, there can be no question of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act by any person. ( 5 ) THE next question is whether the appellants have contravened clauses 3 and 7 of the Licensing Order. Clause 3 provides that no person shall carry on business as dealer except under and in accordance with terms and conditions of the licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority. The licence Ext. 7 was issued in favour of the Managing Director of Kundra LAMPS for carrying on business of storage for sale of sugar. Appellant Bijoya being the Managing Director was therefore entitled to carry on business of storage for sale of sugar in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. So the essential question is whether he carried on business in storage of sugar for sale in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. ( 6 ) CLAUSE 7 of the Licensing Order reiterates that no holder of a licence issued under the order or his agent or servant or any person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the licence and in case of contravention, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him including forfeiture of security deposit to the extent of loss sustained by Government, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of the licensing authority. ( 7 ) IN the case at hand the appellant Bhagaban being the Store-in-charge-cum-Accountant was acting on behalf of the Managing Director of the license. ( 7 ) IN the case at hand the appellant Bhagaban being the Store-in-charge-cum-Accountant was acting on behalf of the Managing Director of the license. Therefore, the essential question for determination is if the appellants have contravened any term or condition of the licence and if so what legal consequence will follow. Condition no. 3 requires the license to maintain a Register of Daily Accounts of sugar showing the opening stock, quantity received, quantity delivered and closing stock of each day. In the instant case there has been contravention of this condition inasmuch as daily accounts were not maintained from 30. 6. 1986 upto 24. 7. 1986. But as already stated, the learned Special Judge has exonerated the appellants from the accusation in this regard on the ground of absence of mens rea. Mr. Mishra for the appellants argued with vehemence that even accepting the prosecution story that excess stock of sugar was detected, this fact does not contravene any of the clauses of the licence. Counsel for the State could not controvert this position by referring to any clause in the licence or the Licensing order. Excess stock may he either due to receipt of more stock or delivery of less stock then what has been disclosed in the books of account. In either case the authorities can certainly take action for suspension or cancellation of the licence in exercise of powers under clause 7 of the licence, for non-maintenance of correct accounts. But there being no specific provision either in the Licensing Order or in the licence with regard to actual quantity of sugar in the stock of the licensee, it cannot be said that a licensee or anybody acting on his behalf by being in possession of excess stock of sugar is guilty of contravention so as to make himself liable for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ( 8 ) ON above analysis of the facts and legal position, I am of the view that the impugned conviction cannot be sustained in law. In the result the appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeals allowed.