This revision petition under section 397, 401, 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 16.12.95 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No.2 (3) of 1995, thereby altering trial Court's judgment dated 28.6.95 in CR Case No.2272 of 1992 convicting the petitioner under section 13 of the Rice Milling Industries Regulation Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-or in default to suffer three months RI. 2. Prosecution case was that on 1.12.92 at about 10.15 AM Jaydev Das, Sub Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, Katlicherra visited the residence of the accused accompanied by Soraj Kumar Barman, Bidhan Chandra Roy and Shri R.K. Singha, Superintendent, Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies respectively and found that a rice mill was installed in a kacha house of the premises of the accused Amal Roy at village Uttar Niskar. On enquiry it is learnt that Amal Roy is the owner of the rice mill in question. On demand accused could not produce any document in support of installation and operation of the rice mill. Such unauthorised installation and operation of a rice mill is a violation of the provision of section 8 (1) and (2) of Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act and as such cognizance was taken. The diesel engine of the mill, the huller, rubber belt connecting the engine with the huller and a handel were seized from the spot in presence of the accused by a seizure list (Ext. 1). Thereafter the supply officers gave the zimma of diesel engine, one huller, two numbers of water drums and two connecting plastic pipes to the accused on execution of zimmanama (Ext 2) and the belt and the handle were taken away to office so that accused cannot run the mill. Thereafter the Sub Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Katlicherra, Shri Joydev Das, submitted a report as to detection seizure, zimma etc. to ADC Hailakandi and on the basis of this report a formal complaint (offence report) was filed by Saroj Kumar Barman, Superintendent, Food & Civil Supplies to the Court. On receipt of the same, a case was registered, cognizance was taken and the accused Amal Roy was summoned to face trial on his appearance, particulars of offence under section 13 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On receipt of the same, a case was registered, cognizance was taken and the accused Amal Roy was summoned to face trial on his appearance, particulars of offence under section 13 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined four witnesses. Accused did not adduce any evidence. His statement under section 313 CrPC was recorded. His case is the denial of the alleged charge. He did not install the rice mill in question nor operated it and nothing was seized from his possession nor these were given in zimma. He also did not claim the seized mill machineries to be his. But at the same time he raised a claim through his father though the person concerned never appeared before the Court and put forth his claim. 3. The trial Court rejecting his defence found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence charged. The same has been upheld by the Sessionss Judge, hence this petition. 4. The point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the same ownership of the mill as were raised before the Courts below, the same is based on appreciation of evidence and the findings are concurrent. These findings of facts can not be interferred with in a revision petition as it would be transgressing the scope of revisional jurisdiction, more so when the findings are well supported by evidence on record. 5. 'Owner' as defined in the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958 for short the Act, mean "..... the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the rice mill, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing Director or managing agent shall be deemed to be the owner of the rice mill." 6. It is not in dispute that the rice mill was without any licence issued under section 5 of the Act. As has been held by the Supreme Court licence is essential even for rice milling for private consumption as distinguished from an industry (see 1966 CrI LJ 1541). 7. It is not in dispute that the rice mill was without any licence issued under section 5 of the Act. As has been held by the Supreme Court licence is essential even for rice milling for private consumption as distinguished from an industry (see 1966 CrI LJ 1541). 7. The object of the Act was to regulate the working of rice mills in such a manner that while on the one hand, the hand pounding industry gets reasonable facilities for development and employment is provided for the rural population, on the other, requisite facilities for conversion of paddy into rice are not curtailed, particularly at a time when efforts are being made to increase appreciably the production of paddy in the country. With this object in view, it was considered that the working of rice mills be regulated by the issue of licences and the setting up of new rice mills, or the expansion of the existing rice mills be prohibited without the specific permission of the Govt. The Bills aims at the achievement of these objectives as also to provide for certain other matters connected with the functioning of the rice mills. 8. Considering the above object, the punishment as imposed by the Courts below does not call for any interference. This petition therefore fails, it is accordingly dismissed.