Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.- The case has been referred to the Bench by our learned brother Mirza, J., as it involved interpretation of ‘note’ to condition 2 of the licence. The facts necessary to appreciate the question involved may briefly be stated. The petitioners herein have been prosecuted by the police, Jaggayyapet inCrime No. 47/65 under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 8 of Andhra Pradesh ‘Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964 and condition 2 of the licence issued thereunder. It is stated in the charge-sheet that the petitioners and six others are partners of a firm doing business in foodgrains under the name and style of ‘Nakirikanti Pandurangarao, Tummuluri Pandurangarao & Co.‘and they have been granted wholesale and retail licences under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order bearing Nos. 686/64-65 and 687/64-65. On 12th September, 1965 at about 4 a.m. the first petitioner was found transporting 64 bags of rice, 6 bags of jawar and 3 bags of bran in a lorry No. APK. 1439. The lorry was chased by the C.I. Special Intelligence Unit, C.I.D., Waltair Zone and stopped after ‘they had crossed the check post at Shermohammadpet on Vijayawada Hyderabad Road. It was stated that according to the licences held by the petitioners, they were not entitled to store the foodgrains at any other place except Jaggayyapet nor permitted to carry on business except in Jaggayyapet. They had no licence to store the foodgrains at Thakkellapadu or any other place except Jaggayyapet. Therefore by transporting the foodgrains from Jaggayyapet to Thakkellapadu, they had violated condition 2 of the licence and were liable to punishment under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 8 of Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964 and condition 2 of the licence issued thereunder. The petitioners thereupon filed a petition undersection 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings on the file of the District Munsif-Magistrate, Vijayawada. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that under the amended clause (c) of the A.P. Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1964 they were competent to transport foodgrains within the district for the purpose of storing it and the only restriction that was imposed on them was to give intimation thereof within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the godown. The charge-sheet, according to him has not taken note of the amendment carried on under the said note. It may be noted that the note referred to above previously stood as under: “If the licensee intends storing his foodgrains in places other than those specified above, he shall give prior intimation thereof and shall produce the licence for making requisite changes by the licensing authority.” As the result of amendment brought about on 17th April, 1964 the note to condition 2 reads as under: “If the licensee intends storing his foodgrains in places other than those specified above, he shall give intimation thereof within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the godown and shall produce the licence for requisite changes by the licensing authority.” The contention is that even according to the charge-sheet, the change brought about by the amendment has not been noticed; for the relevant portion of the charge-sheet reads as under: “The firm has no licence to store the foodgrains at Thakkellapadu or any other place except in Jaggayyapet. A-1 and A-2 were found transporting the rice and jawar......from Jaggayyapet to Thakkellapadu for being stored at Thakkellapadu for sale at that place in violation of condition 2 of the licence.....” Obviously the reference is to the condition existing prior to the amendment wherein prior intimation had to be given before shifting the place of storage. After the amendment as stated above, the intimation has to be given within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the godown. It is conceded that even before such intimation could be given, the petitioners were hauled up. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, placed a different interpretation on the wording in the note to condition 2. According to him the int’mation has to be given within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the godown. The emphasis is on the words ‘the godown’. According to him it refers to the godowns allotted to a licensee. The licensee is required to give intimation of his changing the venue of storage within 48 hours of the occupation of the godown which has been allotted to him. We are, however, not inclined to accept this interpretation, for obviously this amendment has been brought out to facilitate the licensees to occupy godowns at places other than those specified in the license. We are, however, not inclined to accept this interpretation, for obviously this amendment has been brought out to facilitate the licensees to occupy godowns at places other than those specified in the license. The amendment clearly envisaged a position when the licensee gets more grains than he is in a position to stock at godowns allotted to him at a specified place. In that event, he is permitted to use another godown and the only restriction imposed on him is that he may do so under intimation to the licensing authority within 48 hours of the actual occupation of the new godown. No doubt such an interpretation might lead to some abuse, but the interpretation sought to be imposed on it by the learned Public Prosecutor is apt to create restrictions which are unwarranted by the amendment and in fact appear to be against the spirit of the amendment. We arc ‘therefore inclined to hold that even according to the charge-sheet, no case of violation of condition 2 of the licence has been made out against the petitioners. Dealing with cases where inherent powers of the High Court could be exercised, the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1, has laid down that where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises, it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In the instant case, as observed above, on a reading of the charge-sheet and accepting it at its face value, we are of the opinion that no case of violation of condition 2 of the licence has been made out and it is a fit case where the inherent powers under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised. In that view we allow the petition and quash the proceedings instituted against the petitioners before the trial Court. G.S.M. ----- Petition allowed.