Order The petitioner has been convicted in this case for an offence under Section 7 (i)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The accused was running a rice mill called the “Kamalambika Rice Mill” having taken it on lease from one Natesa Chettiar, who has been examined as P.W. 6 in the case. A licence under the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955, has been issued to P.W. 6. Subsequent to the issue of the licence, the petitioner herein obtained a lease of the rice mill and he was found to be running it from January, 1955 to 31st August, 1955. The date when he was actually found to be running it was 26th January, 1955. Admittedly the petitioner has no licence in his name. The licence continued to be in the name of his lessor P.W. 6. The lessee is one Swaminatha Trading Corporation represented by Director and Manager Venkatarama Ayyar. The complaint has been laid against this Trading Corporation represented by this Director Venkatarama Ayyar. The complaint is for not taking out a licence as required under the provisions of the Madras Rice Mill Licensing Order, 1955, and the petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. The contention of Mr. T.S. Kuppuswami Ayyar appearing for the petitioner is that as the lessor has got a licence in his name, it is not necessary for the lessee to take out a further licence in his name, as according to his reading of clause (2) of the Order, the licence must be interpreted as having been issued on behalf of the mill. Clause (2) is as follows: “No person shall mill rice or hull paddy, or otherwise subject rice or paddy to any processing by power driven machinery except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority.” Stress is laid on the expression “in that behalf” as meaning “on behalf of the mill” and “not on behalf of the person”. This question came up for consideration before Ramaswami Gounder, J., in Crl.R.C. No. 960 of 1955. There the accused instead of being a lessee was a purchaser of the mill from the original licensee. Otherwise the facts are exactly identical with this case, that is. the vendee also did not obtain a licence. This question came up for consideration before Ramaswami Gounder, J., in Crl.R.C. No. 960 of 1955. There the accused instead of being a lessee was a purchaser of the mill from the original licensee. Otherwise the facts are exactly identical with this case, that is. the vendee also did not obtain a licence. During the period in question there was a valid licence in favour of the vendor. A similar contention like the one raised before me was raised before my learned brother and he was dealt with it fully. He has pointed out that under the terms of this Order, the licence is a personal one and not issued on behalf of the machine. For instance, clauses (3) and (5). Of the conditions of the licence impose certain obligations on the licensee. If those obligations are not observed it is only the licensee who could be prosecuted for non-observance of the conditions, and so a vendee or a lessee who has not observed those conditions can well resist the prosecution on the ground that the conditions therein and the obligations imposed by these clauses relate only to the licensee and that the is not bound by those conditions as he is not a licensee. The very purpose of the Order can well be defeated by such a plea, which will be a valid plea because these obligations are imposed only upon the licensee and not upon any other person. My learned brother has therefore held that the vendee therein should obtain a licence in his name as otherwise he is liable under the provisions of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955. In this case, a distinction is sought to be made by Mr. Kuppuswimi Ayyar between a lessee and a vendee. For the purpose of this case and for the purpose of the conditions for this license, I see no difference between a vendee and a lessee. It seems to me that what applies to a vendee is exactly applicable to a lessee so far as the obligations imposed on them are concerned. Agreeing with my learned brother. I hold that in this case the petitioner should have obtained a licence in his name and he having failed to do it, the conviction is justified. It seems to me that what applies to a vendee is exactly applicable to a lessee so far as the obligations imposed on them are concerned. Agreeing with my learned brother. I hold that in this case the petitioner should have obtained a licence in his name and he having failed to do it, the conviction is justified. Another point that was raised is that under Clause 13 of the Order there must be a sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner herein. Now the original order of sanction is clearly given to prosecute the Swaminatha Trading Corporation. The complaint also has been filed only against the Swaminatha Trading Corporation represented by its Director and Manager, A.S. Venkaratama Ayyar. In the cause-title of the judgment merely because Venkatarama Ayyar's name alone is mentioned as the accused, a point is taken that it must be deemed to be a prosecution against Venkatarama Ayyar and not against the Swaminatha Trading Corporation. It is obvious that the cause-title has not been properly framed. This is generally done by a clerk and the fact that the clerk has committed a mistake cannot prevail over the facts of this case, as the complaint was against the Swaminatha Trading Corporation represented by the Director and manager A.S. Venkatarama Ayyar and the Court has also considered the case against the Swaminatha Trading Corporation represented by the Director and Manager A.S. Venkatararama Ayyar as can be seen from the opening paragraph of the judgment. There is, therefore, no substance in this point also raised by Mr. Kuppuswami Ayyar. Both the points fail and the conviction is confirmed. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive and is also confirmed. The petition is therefore dismissed. R.M.-----Petition dismissed.