( 1. ) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal.

( 2. ) THE respondent was tried for contravention of the M. P. Commodities Price Display Order, 1971, issued under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.

( 3. ) THE prosecution case against the accused was that on December 13, 1971, he had for sale in his shop baby food, milk powder, Amul Spray, Parag, Lactodex, etc. , but he had not displayed the price list.

( 4. ) THE accused accepted that he had not displayed the price list and pleaded guilty.

( 5. ) THE learned trial Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that the said Order had not received prior concurrence of the Central Government as required under Rule 114 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The material portion of Rule 114 may be reproduced here: General control of industry, etc. ,

(1) xx xx xx (2) If the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the Defence of India and Civil Defence, the efficient conduct of military operation or the maintenance or increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, manufacture, supply and distribution, use and consumption of article or things and trade and commerce therein or for preventing any corrupt practice or abuse of authority in respect of any such matter.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2), an order made thereunder may provide for- (a) Regulating by licences, permits or otherwise, the production, manufacture, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles or things of any description whatsoever; X X X X X X (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (2) and (3), an order under these Sub-rules for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise by movement or transport of any foodstuffs, including edible oil seeds and edible oils or for controlling the prices or rates, at which any such foodstuffs may be bought or sold, shall not be made by the State Government except with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. (Underlined by us ).

( 6. ) THE contention is that although power is given to the State Government under Sub-rules (2) and (3) to issue an order, such as the impugned order, yet, as required in Sub-rule (4), no order could be issued for controlling the prices except with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. The learned trial Magistrate has held that requirement to display conspicuously a price list was part of price control and was within the mischief of Sub-rule (4 ). Tt is true that the M. P. Commodities Price Display Order, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Order) was published without prior concurrence of the Central Government. The question is whether that Order falls within the purview of Rule 114 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.

( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant State contends that the latter part of Sub-rule (4) relates to only those food-stuffs, the movement or transport of which is regulated under the first part of the Sub-rule. She lays emphasis on the word "such" and urges that it necessarily refers to those food-stuffs for regulating the movement or transport of which an order is made. In our opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. The non obstante clause in Sub-rule (4) refers to two kinds of orders which may be made under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules: (1) An order for regulating (by licences, permits or otherwise) movement or transport of any food-stuffs, including edible oil seeds and edible oils; and (2) an order for controlling the prices or rates at which any such food-stuffs may be bought or sold. Both these orders are independent of each other. It i