Statutory presumption on foodgrain storage for sale does not by itself prove dealer status without independent proof of business.

A statutory presumption that storage of 100 maunds or more of foodgrains was for sale under clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 did not by itself establish that a person was carrying on business as a dealer under clause 3(1). The definition of dealer required continuity of transactions and proof of business, not a single casual act of storage. The presumption under clause 3(2) was limited to the purpose of storage and did not dispense with independent proof of the business element. In the absence of such additional evidence, liability under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presumption under clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, that storage of 100 maunds or more of foodgrains is for sale, by itself proves that the person is carrying on business as a dealer under clause 3(1) so as to attract liability under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: Clause 2(a) defined a dealer as a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale of specified foodgrains in the requisite quantity, and the use of the word "business" required continuity of transactions rather than a single casual act. Clause 3(2) created only a limited rebuttable presumption that storage of the prescribed quantity was for the purpose of sale. That presumption did not extend to the distinct element of carrying on business as a dealer, which remained an essential ingredient of clause 3(1). The prosecution therefore still had to prove, by independent evidence, that the storage for sale was part of the business of a dealer. On the facts, that additional element was not proved.

Conclusion: The presumption under clause 3(2) did not by itself establish that the respondent was a dealer under clause 3(1), and the charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 failed.

Final Conclusion: A limited statutory presumption as to storage for sale cannot be extended to dispense with proof of the independent requirement of carrying on business as a dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal licensing provision defines a dealer by reference to carrying on business, a statutory presumption that goods above a specified quantity are stored for sale does not by itself prove the business element unless the statute expressly so provides.

---