https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168294 The Supreme Court construed "storage" in the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 as requiring continuity, a place of deposit, and keeping goods for safe custody. It held that paddy carried merely in a moving truck in transit is not, by itself, storage, because transport and storage are distinct activities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Penal control provisions were therefore strictly read, and transport simpliciter was not brought within the Order. On the facts, mere presence of paddy in the truck did not attract criminal liability under Section 7. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168294 The Supreme Court construed "storage" in the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 as requiring continuity, a place of deposit, and keeping goods for safe custody. It held that paddy carried merely in a moving truck in transit is not, by itself, storage, because transport and storage are distinct activities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Penal control provisions were therefore strictly read, and transport simpliciter was not brought within the Order. On the facts, mere presence of paddy in the truck did not attract criminal liability under Section 7. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168294