ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) UNDAUNTED by several adverse adjudications petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed by the learned Special Judge cum-Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2 (c) C. C. No. 9 of 1993, holding that the prosecution was not barred by limitation and there was no force in the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts sans unnecessary details are as follows : Alleging violation of Clause 9 and 14 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy and Restrictions on Sale and Movement) Order, 1982 (in short, 'movement Order') by the petitioner and three others, thereby making them punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1953 (in short, the 'act'), prosecution report was submitted against them by Shri Adikonda Panigrahi, the then Inspector of Supplies, Ganjam (hereinafter referred to as 'informant') indicating that on verification of records discrepancy was found in stock during verification on 1-3-1992. Prosecution report was submitted on 27-2-1993. According to petitioner, it was submitted on 19-3-1993. According to the petitioner, contravention was not one under Section 7 of the Act, and if at all there was any contravention, same is relatable to one under Section 13 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short, 'rice Milling Act'), and the prosecution was to be initiated under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. The minimum penalty is one month which may extend to one year under Section 13 (2) (B) of the Rice Milling Act. The prosecution report alleging contravention under Section 7 of the Act is not sustainable in law as there is no reference to Section 3 of the said Act. Even if Section 13 (2) (B) of the Rice Milling Act and Section 7 of the Act are applicable, prosecution is barred by limitation as it was filed after one year and nineteen days. Reference is made to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code' ). ( 3 ) EARLIER the petitioner had prayed for discharge which was rejected by the learned special Judge by order dated 6-10-1994. Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1994 was filed before this Court which was not entertained and by order dated 7-11-1994 the prayer for revision was rejected. ( 3 ) EARLIER the petitioner had prayed for discharge which was rejected by the learned special Judge by order dated 6-10-1994. Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1994 was filed before this Court which was not entertained and by order dated 7-11-1994 the prayer for revision was rejected. Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 600 of 1995 before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 24-2-1995 with observation that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to raise the plea of limitation at the appropriate time before the trial Court. The learned Special Judge found that though the occurrence took place on 1-3-1992, the P. R. having been submitted on 27-2-1993 was within the period of limitation. ( 4 ) PETITIONER, who appeared in person, submitted that the offence is not under Section 7 of the Act. With reference to Section 13 of the Rice Milling Act, it is submitted that the minimum and maximum being one month and one year respectively, the period of limitation is one year in terms of Section 469 of the Code. It is stated that there is factual mistake as the prosecution report was not filed on 27-2-1993 as alleged. The prosecution report was filed on 19-3-1993. The other accused persons supported the stand of the petitioner. Learned counsel for state on the other hand submitted that the plea relating to limitation is clearly untenable, and in any event Section 473 of the Code comes in aid of prosecution. ( 5 ) THE stand that the offence is one controlled by the Rice Milling Act has no substance. The allegations related to contravention of the Movement Order. Clause 9 of the Movement Order provides that no miller shall sell or agree to sell or otherwise dispose of the rice recovered by milling, other than the quantity specified in Clause 3 except in accordance with the permit in the relevant Form issued by the Collector or any officer authorised by the Collector or the Director in this behalf. Clause 14 relates to maintenance of accounts, and postulates that every miller shall maintain a register of daily accounts of paddy processed in his mill during the day in the relevant Form, and to submit fortnightly return. The order has been promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution etc. The order has been promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities Section 7 of the Act prescribes that if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3, he shall be punishable. In order to make out a case under Section 7, there must have been contravention of some order. Sections 3 and 7 so far as relevant read as follows :"section 3. Power to control productions, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities. (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. (2) Without prejudice to the generally of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide- (a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity; (b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not, for growing thereon of food-crops generally, or of specified food-crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops generally, or of specified food-crops; (c) for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold; (d) for regulating by licences, permit or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity; (e) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale; (f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged in the production or in the business or buying or selling, of any essential commodity,- (a) to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or produced or received by him, or (b) in the case of any such commodity which is likely to be produced or received by him, to sell the whole or a specified part of such a commodity when produced or received by him, to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order. Explanation 1.- An order made under this clause in relation to foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, may, having regard to the estimated production, in the concerned area, of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils, fix the quantity to be sold by the producers in such area and may also fix or provide for the fixation of, such quantity on a graded basis, having regard to the aggregate of the area held by, or under the cultivation of, the producers. Explanation 2.- For the purpose of this clause, 'production' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes manufacture of edible oils and sugar; (g) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transactions relating to foodstuffs or cotton textiles which, in the opinion of the authority making the order, are or if unregulated, are likely to be, detrimental to the public interest; (h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters; (i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order; (ii) for the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents, the charging of fees therefor, the deposit of such sum, if any, as may be specified in the order as security for the due performance of the conditions of any such licence, permit or other document, the forfeiture of the sum so deposited or any part thereof for contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority as may be specified in the order; (j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, or other conveyances and animals, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search, or examination,- (i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found; (ii) of any aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal used in carrying such articles, is such person has reason to believe that such aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of this Act; (iii) of any books of accounts and documents which in the opinion of such person, may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and the person from whose custody such book of accounts or documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer having the custody of such books of accounts or documents;""section 7. Penalties (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3- (a) he shall be punishable,- (i) in the case of an order made with reference to Cl. (h) or Cl. (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine : Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months; (b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government; (c) any packing, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the property shall, if the Court so orders, be forfeited to the Government. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, sub-section (1), Clause (a) (i) of Section 7 is relevant for our purpose, and if the Rice Milling Act is applied, the minimum sentence would be one month and the maximum would be one year, and therefore, Section 468 of the Code comes into operation. ( 7 ) SECTION 468 of the Code relates to bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. It reads as follows :"458. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this Section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. "the maximum sentence that can be imposed for the two categories has been laid down in sub-section (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of Section 7. According to the petitioner, the prosecution report has been submitted in terms of Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, and the period of limitation would be in terms of the Rice Milling Act. The learned Special Judge has observed that the period of limitation is seven years, and Clauses 9 and 14 of the Control Order relate to an offence punishable for seven years, obviously in terms of Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. Clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act relates to collection of any information of statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the matters provided afore. Similarly clause (i) deals with an order requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the Order. The Order has not been made for purposes of either of the clauses referred to above. On the contrary as the preamble itself indicates it was enacted for the purpose of maintaining the supply of rice and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices in the State of Orissa. The order is prima facie relatable to Clauses (c) (d) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. A conjoint reading of various clauses in addition to the preamble makes the position clear. Petitioner has asserted that there is error in recording the correct date of submission of the prosecution report. The order is prima facie relatable to Clauses (c) (d) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. A conjoint reading of various clauses in addition to the preamble makes the position clear. Petitioner has asserted that there is error in recording the correct date of submission of the prosecution report. Even if it is accepted to be correct, conclusion of learned Special Judge that the alleged offences are punishable for seven years does not suffer from any infirmity. Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act is crystal clear in that regard. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.