G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these revisions arise out of the one and the same case and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The two petitioners have been convicted under section 7 (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened clause 15 of the Orissa Cement Control Order, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Control Order) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

( 2 ) PETITIONER T. Susila Patra who is petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 183 of 1983 is the wife of T. Shyam Babu Patra who is petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 190 of 1983. They stood their trial for having contravened the provisions of clauses 11/2), 15, 16 and 17 of the Control Order as well as Conditions 2 and 6 of the Licence issued under the said Order, but the prosecution having failed to establish regarding violation of clauses 11 (2), 16 and 17 they have been acquitted of the said charges by the learned Magistrate. Their conviction in question is, however, for the contravention of clause is of the Control Order and the said conviction has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal.

( 3 ) CLAUSE 15 of the Control Order casts an obligation on every stockist obtaining cement to display at a conspicuous place in the premises where the cement is stocked, the stock of cement in his possession as well as the price at which the cement is sold by him. For convenience, clause 15 of the Control Order is quoted herein below in extenso:

15. Display of stock position and sale prices. Every stockist obtaining Cement shall at the beginning of the business hours on each day display at a conspicuous place in the premises where the Cement is stocked, the stock of Cement in his possession and the price or prices at which the Cement is sold by him. It is the prosecution case that on 2-12-1978, when the Inspector of Supplies, Aska and other officials of the Supply Department inspected the premises of M/s Balaji Traders, Aska, there had been no display of the stock position and the prices, as required under the provisions of the Control Order. The prosecution case, as aforesaid, has been fully established through the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and both the courts below have believed the said evidence. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to discard their testimony in this revision. The defence version was that the Supply Officer directed the servant to clean the board as certain cement particles had been glued to the board and as he washed the same, the board in question did not contain the necessary entries. This defence story was sought to be proved through the evidence of D. W. 1, but the same has already been discussed and discarded by the learned trying Magistrate as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, the finding of the courts below that there was no display of the stock position as well as the prices in the premises where the cement was being sold, must be sustained which would amount to an infraction of clause 15 of the Control Order.

( 4 ) MR. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that clause 15 makes liable only the Stockist who contravenes the provision. Stockistt is defined in clause 2 (b) to mean, a person who holds a licence under the Order to deal in cement for the purpose of selling to a consumer. Since the licence in the present case stands in the name of T. Susila Patra, it is she who will be the Stockist and not her husband, T. Shyam Babu Patra, and consequently, no liability can be fastened on T Shyam Babu Patra, This point unfortunately has not been raised in the courts below, but this being a pure question of law, I permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to urge the same. It is stated in the prosecution report its