JUDGMENT

H.N. Seth, J. - Chandra Prakash son of Durga Prasad has filed this application in revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, dated 29th October, 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1968, upholding the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Farrukhabad, dated 10th June, 1968, convicting him for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-.

2. The allegation made against the applicant was that on 18th October, 1967, at about 12 noon, one Sri B.D. Pathak, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who had been duly authorised by the District Magistrate under clause 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitaran (Rasad) Adesh of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Adesh) , visited the cycle shop of the applicant. He found that the price list that was hung on the shop was not signed by the dealer and that the whole stock position was not clearly mentioned on the stock-board. It was also discovered that the dealer had not maintained the stock register up-to-date. The prosecution claimed, that in the circumstances, the applicant committed offences by contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the Adesh on three counts which are punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the various charges levelled against him. He contended that the price list exhibited by him did contain the signatures of one Ram Ratan, who was a partner in the firm which was running the business. He also claimed that the stock register was complete upto 17th October, 1967, and that the stock position had been rightly shown with chalk marks. He, however, stated that by the time when Sri Pathak visited his shop, the markings, indicating the correct stock position on the stock-board, might have been accidently rubbed off.

4. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, found that the accused was guilty on all the three counts, and convicted him for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. In appeal, the learned Sessions judge observed that the Adesh did not make any provision for maintaining any stock register. Even if the appellant did not maintain a stock register, he could not be held guilty of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. On the question whether the price list bore the signatures of the dealer or not, the learned Sessions judge felt doubtful and came to the conclusion that in all probability, the defence that the price list contained the signatures of Ram Ratan who was one of the partners was correct. He accordingly gave him benefit of doubt on this count and held that his conviction for exhibiting a price list which had not been signed by the dealer, could also not be upheld. He however, upheld the conviction of the applicant on the ground that he did not show the stock position on the stock board, and maintained the fine of Rs. 1,500/- imposed upon him.

5. Clause 3 (3) of the Adesh requires that every dealer shall prominently exhibit a separate list showing the stock of different classes or varieties of scheduled commodities held by him at the end of the day preceding. It is not disputed that a list, as required by clause 3 (3) was maintained by the accused in the form of a board, on which the items of the essential commodities, for which a list had to be maintained, were mentioned. In front of those commodities, there were columns for indicating the stock position and the remarks. By the side of this list, the board also contained another list indicating the reserved stock of the essential goods. In front of those essential goods also, there were columns meant for indicating the stock position and the remarks. On this board, entries about the stock position had to be indicated by making markings by chalk. The learned Sessions judge believed the prosecution case and held that when Sri Pathak visited the shop of the accused, he found that