Order. The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 439 of 1967 in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, Nanjangud. He was charged for an offence under rule 3 of the Mysore Foodgrains (Retail) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Indian Essential Commodities Act, on the allegation that, without obtaining a retail dealer’s licence for carrying on business as a retail dealer, he was holding a stock of 14.06 quintals of rice and 79 Kgs. of jawar in his shop at Gundlupet on 25th May, 1967. The defence of the accused was that he was not a dealer and chat he had stored the foodgrains in his house for consumption and not for sale. The Magistrate, on the evidence, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days. He also directed the foodgrains seized to be confiscated. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this Revision Petition by the accused. It was contended in support of the petition by Mr. Chhatre, the learned Counsel, that unless the prosecution proves that the petitioner was a retail dealer, his conviction under rule 3 cannot be sustained, and he submits that on the evidence the prosecution must be held to have failed to prove that the petitioner is a retail dealer. He also submitted that it is for the prosecution to prove further that the sales which are alleged to have been made by the petitioner have been made to the consumers, and that there is no evidence to show that the sales effected in this case were to consumers. He therefore submits that the prosecution has failed to establish its case, and the order is therefore liable to be set aside. Now, rule 3 reads as follows: “No person shall carry on business as a retail dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority.” That means a retail dealer has to carry on business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore he must possess a licence in order to carry on business as a retail dealer. The term “retail dealer” has also been defined as follows: “2. Therefore he must possess a licence in order to carry on business as a retail dealer. The term “retail dealer” has also been defined as follows: “2. (e) ‘Retail dealer’ means a person engaged in the business of sale of foodgrains to consumers only and who keeps for such sale at any one time ten quintals or more of any one foodgrain or 25 quintals or more of all foodgrains taken together.” Thus, in order to establish that a person is a retail dealer, it must be established that such a person has engaged himself in business of sale of foodgrains, and secondly for such sale he must keep at one time ten quintals or more of any one foodgrain or 25 quintals or more of all foodgrains. The evidence produced in this case to sustain the conviction against the accused is that he has sold rice once on 16th May, 1967 as per Exhibit P-3(b) and on another occasion, i.e., on 18th May, 1967 as per Exhibits P-2(e) and P-2(f). These are the only two occasions on which the prosecution has established that the accused has sold the rice. These transactions do not show that they were sold to consumers. However, what is essential and necessary for the prosecution to prove is that the accused had engaged himself in the business of sale of foodgrains to consumers. The term ‘business of sale’ must necessarily mean not one or two isolated acts, but there must be a con:inuity in carrying on the business. Mr. Chhatra has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh1. In that decision, clause 2(a) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 came up for cons deration. This is what their Lordships have stated: “The definition in clause 2(a) shows that before a person can be said to be a dealer, it must be shown that he carries on business of purchase, or sale, or storage for sale of any of the commodities specified in the schedule, and that the sale must be in quantity of 100 mds. or more at any one time. or more at any one time. The requirement is not that the person should merely sell, purchase, or store the foodgrains in question, but that he must be carrying on the business of such purchase, sale, orstorage and the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. It is not a single casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase, or storage that would make a person a dealer. If this element of continuity is ignored, it would be rendering the use of the word” business “redundant or meaningless.” Thus it is clear that in order to show that the accused had engaged himself in the business of sale of foodgrains to consumers, it must be established that there was continuity of transactions. In the instant case no such continuity of transactions have been proved to sustain the conviction. In my opinion, from the evidence it cannot be held that the accused was a retail dealer as defined in rule 2(e) of the Mysore Foodgrains (Retail) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. The trial Court has found the accused guilty stating that at one time the accused was holding a licence, and, therefore, it could be inferred that he was doing the business as a retail dealer. In my opinion, such an inference is not permissible having regard to the definition of ‘retail dealer.‘ In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him and acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. If the accused has paid the fine, the same shall be refunded to him. If the foodgrains which are confiscated are available, they should be returned to the accused, and if they are sold, the amount realised by such sale should be paid to him. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.