JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This is an application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 6.9.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (for short, ‘the Control Order’). 2. Facts leading to submission of the prosecution report are that on 20.11.1998 about 8 p.m. while the opposite party was returning from Buguda to Bhanjanagar along with Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar, A.C.S.O., Bhanjanagar, and the Inspector of Sup¬plies, Buguda, he found a loaded truck bearing registration No. MP-26-D/4289 going towards Balipadara. He detained the truck on the main road near Octroi Check Gate No. 1, Buguda N.A.C. and found 90 packets each weighing 50 kgs. of common boiled rice on the said truck. On interrogation the driver of the truck said that he had loaded 90 packets of rice at Aska, Nuagaon on 20.11.1998 at 5 p.m. and was transporting the same to Karada in the district of Nayagarh as per direction of the petitioner. It is further stated in the prosecution report that no one came forward to claim the stock nor the driver could produce any document for storage and possession thereof and accordingly the stock of 4.55 quintals of rice was seized. The owner of the truck was examined and he stated that the petitioner had taken the truck on hire for transporting the rice from Aska to Karada on 20.11.1998. The petitioner having failed to produce any document or licence for transporting the rice under the Control Order, has committed contravention of the same and as such is punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no contravention of Clause 3 of the said Control Order and as such, no offence is made out. The learned counsel further submits that the stock found in a moving vehicle cannot amount to storing, and he relies on a decision reported in (1996) 11 OCR (SC) 573, Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa, etc. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the stock found in a moving vehicle cannot amount to storing, and he relies on a decision reported in (1996) 11 OCR (SC) 573, Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa, etc. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that under given facts and circumstances, paddy found in a moving truck may also amount to storage and in the present case the facts would indicate that the paddy seized had been stored in a truck and as such, there was contravention of Clause 3 of the Control Order as aforesaid. 5. A copy of the prosecution report has been filed before this Court as Annexure 1. From the prosecution report it appears that the opposite party found the truck in question moving to¬wards Balipadara and he detained the truck near the Octroi Check Gate No. 1 at Buguda N.A.C. On verification it was found that 90 packets of common boiled rice had been stored in the truck. On interrogation the driver said that on 30.11.1998 at about 5 p.m. the stock was loaded and as per the direction of the petitioner the stock was being transported to village Karada in Nayagarh district. The owner of the truck was also examined and he stated that his truck had been taken on hire by the petitioner for transportation of rice from Aska to village Karada. However, since the possession of the stock exceeded the storage limit and no document could be produced in support of such storage, the same was seized and the prosecution report was submitted before the trial Court. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra), the question that came up for adjudication is whether paddy loaded in a truck in excess of the permissible limit while in transit can be deemed to be ‘stored’ within the meaning of the word “storage” in the said Control Order. Their Lordships referring to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘store’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary, (International Edition) and Concise Oxford Dictionary, held that ‘storing’ has an element of continuity as the purpose is to keep the commodity in store and retrieve it at some future date, even within a few days. If goods are kept or stocked in a warehouse, it can be immediately described as an act of ‘stor¬age’. A vehicle can also be used as a storehouse. If goods are kept or stocked in a warehouse, it can be immediately described as an act of ‘stor¬age’. A vehicle can also be used as a storehouse. But, whether in a particular case, a vehicle was used as a ‘store’ or whether a person had stored his merchandise in a vehicle would be a matter of fact in each case. Carrying goods in a vehicle cannot per se be ‘storing’ although it may be quite possible that a vehicle is used as a store. Transporting is not storing. In the present case, as per the statement of the driver as well as the owner of the truck, it appears that the paddy in question was being transported from one place to another and there is no material to indicate that the paddy kept in the truck was being used as a ‘storage’ for being sold at different points. Mere transportation does not contravene the Control Order and therefore, no offence under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. 6. Accordingly the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 6.6.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in 2(c)CC No. 2 of 1999 is quashed. Application allowed.