IMPORTANT POINT
For violation of the provisions of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1973, particularly in a Remote village, the accused can be released on probation considering his age, charter and antecedents.

JUDGMENT

G.B. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner has been convicted under section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, by not displaying the list of stocks of essential commodities and retail prices thereof for having violated Condition No.3 of the licence issued under the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, by not maintaining the daily account of sugar properly and for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order, 1966, by storing baby food in his shop without a licence and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar. The co-accused who also stood charged along with the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not violated the provisions of Clause 7 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order and, therefore, his conviction on that score could not be sustained. But he confirmed the conviction on other two counts and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of rupees five hundred, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months. It is this modified order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge which is being impugned in the present revision.

2. According to the prosecution case, petitioner, Bhagaban is a licenced dealer authorised to deal with several controlled commodities. On 17-4-1980, the Inspector of Supplies, the -Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police Keonjhar, inspected the shop premises of the petitioner. They found that though the shop was open, yet there had been no board indicating the opening stock and retail selling prices of essential commodities, as required under the-provisions of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. They further found that the petitioner had kept two numbers of Amul Spray in the shop for sale though he had no licence under the Orissa Bahy Food Licensing Control Order, 1966. The Supply Inspector verified the sugar stock register and found that the actual stock of sugar was less than the stock shown in the register. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, prosecution report was filed against the petitioner for violation of the provisions as already stated.

3. The plea of the petitioner was that the stock of essential commodities as well as the retail price had been indicated in a slate. It was his further plea that the Amul Spray was not meant for sale but had been kept for his personal use and so far as the sugar was concerned, it was his plea that the stock had been duly maintained.

4. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses and the defence also examined 2 witnesses. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that there had been no display of the stock position as well as the retail price and there had been variation between the stock position of sugar actually in possession and the stock position maintained in the register and further the Amul Spray was kept for sale. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate hold the petitioner guilty on all the three counts. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge having acquitted the petitioner of the charge on the basis of violation of the provision of Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, but affirming the conviction on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order as well as the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order, I am concerned in the present case with the said two Orders.

5. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that o