JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: In this revisional application petitioner prays for quashing of the proceeding being E.C. Case No. 3/91 (pending in the court of the learned Judge, Special Court, Contai), arising out of Patashpur P.S. Case No. 74/91 dated 13.8.91 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(a), 3(3)(a) and 8A of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. 2. Heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the records. 3. Mr. Milan Mukherjee, ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner as transpire from the complaint of Sri A. Sinha, Inspector D.E.B. Midnapore with the Officer-in-Charge, Patashpur P.S., are that on 13.8.91 at bout 15.30 hrs., when the complainant was passing along Egra Bajkul Road, he noticed one lorry bearing No. WGB 4132 loaded with paddy in front of the shop-cum-godwn of the petitioner and on enquiry the complainant came to know that one Shyamal Mitra @ Gora, hired the said lorry of which one Hrishikesh Chanda was the driver for transportation of paddy and the lorry was standing there for loading of more paddy from the godown of the petitioner. The complainant found four coolies loading the truck with paddy in gunny bags and the petitioner's son present in the godown. The driver of the lorry failed to produce any valid documents on demand in respect of 103 bags of paddy weighing 60 kgs. each on the lorry and accordingly those were seized under a proper seizure list. The complainant also seized 27 bags of paddy each bag weighing 60 kgs. from the godown of the petitioner along with one Book of Account, scale and measures and accordingly complaint was lodged as above culminating in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others for offence punishable under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of Act X of .1955 for violation of the provisions of paragraphs 3(1) (a), 3(3) (a) and 8A of the W.B. Rice & Paddy (Licensing & Control) Order, 1967. 4. The petitioner filed an application for his discharge from the trial before the ld. Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) Contai which was rejected by the ld. Judge by order dated 29.4.92 in E.C. Case No.3 of 1991. 4. The petitioner filed an application for his discharge from the trial before the ld. Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) Contai which was rejected by the ld. Judge by order dated 29.4.92 in E.C. Case No.3 of 1991. The petitioner and the other two accused persons were examined under section 251 Cr. P.C. and they pleaded not guilty and 29.5.92 was fixed by the ld. Judge for evidence of the defacto- complainant. 5. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the proceeding before the ld. Special Judge is liable to be quashed as the charge-sheet is absolutely misconceived as the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has not committed any offence and has not violated any provision of W.B. Rice & Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. 6. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the seized paddy in 27 gunny bags weighing 16 quintals 20 kgs. was purchased by the petitioner on various dates for his household consumption from the local farmers and because of paucity of space in his dwelling house those were kept in his god own and the petitioner never purchased paddy exceeding 100 kgs. at a time on any time and as such the alleged violations are absolutely incorrect and untenable in law. 7. Mr. Mukherjee referred to paragraphs 3(1) (a), 3 (3)(a) and 8A of the W.B. Rice and Paddy (Licensing & Control) Order, 1967 which read as follows:- 3. at a time on any time and as such the alleged violations are absolutely incorrect and untenable in law. 7. Mr. Mukherjee referred to paragraphs 3(1) (a), 3 (3)(a) and 8A of the W.B. Rice and Paddy (Licensing & Control) Order, 1967 which read as follows:- 3. Regulation of business in rice and paddy.- (1) No person shall act as a dealer - (a) except under and in accordance with a licence granted under this order, if such person is - (i) a bulk consumer of the category which sells or supplies rice, (ii) a rice-miller, or (iii) a wholesaler, and (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (1) (a) no dealer other than a Government agent and a rice-miller shall sell, purchase for sale, or store for sale, paddy except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the licensing authority and the licensing authority may specify in the permit the maximum quantity of paddy that may be purchased by such dealer during a particular period and the area or areas from which such purchases may be made, and (aa) the licensing authority may specify the centre or centres within the area of a district at which a licensee being a rice miller or a Government Agent, shall purchase paddy, and (b) no person shall be granted both a licence and a registration certificate. 8A. Regulation of purchase of paddy by a consumer.- No consumer shall purchase paddy exceeding 100 kilograms on anyone day except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the licensing authority and the licensing authority may specify in the permit the maximum quantity of paddy that may be purchased by such consumer on any particular day or days during a particular period and the area or areas from which such purchases may be made. 8. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to two decisions reported in 1981 Cr. L.J. 1100 (Shew Ranjan Prasad Shaw vs. State) and A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1533 (Manipur Administration vs. N. Chandra Singh) in support of his contention that there is no provision for raising a statutory presumption that storage of foodgrains beyond certain limit would mean that the storage was for the purpose of sale, mere storage for sale would not justify the conclusion that it was made for the purpose of "carrying on business" as concept of busi.'1ess postulates continuity of transactions. 9. Ld. 9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the definitions of "consumer" and "dealer" in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) of the W.B. Rice & Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 which read as follows:- 2(c) "Consumer" means a person who purchases rice or paddy for consumption by himself and the members of his family and his servants living in the same mess with him; (d) "dealer" means a person who is engaged in any business or undertaking involving sale, purchase for sale or storage for sale or transfer of rice or paddy, or purchase and storage of paddy for production and sale of rice, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or as a commission agent or arhatia, and includes a rice-miller and bulk-consumer but does not include a producer except in so far as such producer purchases, sells or stores for sale rice or paddy other than the paddy grown or caused to be grown by himself or the rice processed wherefrom. Explanation. - (1) If any person not being a consumer or a producer or a dealer licensed or registered under this Order moves from any place to any other place by any means whatsoever a quantity exceeding 15 kilograms, whether in paddy or in paddy equivalent of rice or in both taken together, at any time, except under and in accordance with a permit or an authority granted under any order issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and for the time being in force, such person shall be deemed to be a dealer, unless such person proves to the contrary. (2) ‘Paddy equivalent of rice’ means, in respect of a quantity of rice, a quantity of paddy equal to one and a half times the quantity of rice. 10. Referring to those definitions it is submitted that the petitioner was neither a dealer nor a retailer at any point of time and as consumer he has not violated any provisions of the side order and as such the impugned proceeding in liable to be quashed. 11. Mr. Sudipta Maitra, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the points raised before this court cannot be decided by the revisional jurisdiction of this court and those points can be decided only by the evidence at the trial. 11. Mr. Sudipta Maitra, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the points raised before this court cannot be decided by the revisional jurisdiction of this court and those points can be decided only by the evidence at the trial. It is further submitted that the judgments referred to by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner are not applicable in the instant case and have no relevance at this stage as both the judgments were passed after conviction at the trial but in this case charge-sheet has been filed and there are prima facie materials collected against the petitioner by the investigating agency and the investigating agency should be given an opportunity to prove its case and as such the revisional application is liable to be dismissed. 12. Considering the respective submissions of the parties and the materials on record, this court does not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceeding in its revisional jurisdiction at this stage of the proceeding. 13. The revisional application, heard as a contested application therefore fails and stands disposed of. Interim orders passed by this court on the application stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Since the trial started more than seven years back, the ld. Judge, Special Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the ld. Special Judge (E.C. Act), Contai forthwith and in any event not later than 3 days from date. Revisional application disposed of Direction given.