https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275423 Under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, "storage" required continued possession at a place of storage and did not extend to mere possession of rice in transit or transhipment in a moving vehicle. The Court held that the Order distinguished storage from possession, contemplated licences for each place of storage, and did not criminalise mere carriage. On the facts, the prosecution failed to establish unauthorised storage, so the conviction and sentences were set aside and the confiscation order was quashed, with consequential refund of fine and sale proceeds if paid. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:58:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275423 Under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965, "storage" required continued possession at a place of storage and did not extend to mere possession of rice in transit or transhipment in a moving vehicle. The Court held that the Order distinguished storage from possession, contemplated licences for each place of storage, and did not criminalise mere carriage. On the facts, the prosecution failed to establish unauthorised storage, so the conviction and sentences were set aside and the confiscation order was quashed, with consequential refund of fine and sale proceeds if paid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275423