JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - The applicant Vishwanath, a retail dealer holding a licence for selling kerosene oil in his shop at Varanasi stands convicted under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The sentence awarded to him is one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. On July 17, 1965, at about 1-30 p.m. the Inspector In charge, police station Kotwali, Varanasi, visited the shop of the applicant and found the applicant's son Prabhunath handling the business of the shop. The Station Officer made a checking in the presence of certain witnesses and found that no retail price list had been caused to be displayed and, further, that the daily sales register had not been properly maintained inasmuch as the entries therein did not give full details of each sale. The lacuna in the entries, according to the prosecution, was the absence of the address and the signature of the buyers. It was on the basis of these lacunae that the applicant was charge-sheeted and convicted. 3. There is no controversy that, under clause (4) of the licence granted to the applicant, he was required, inter alia, to maintain a register of daily sales showing full details of each sale. It is this clause in the licence which was relied upon on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charge regarding omission of entries in the register of the addresses and signature of the buyers. As regards the charge of failure to display the retail price, reliance was placed by the prosecution on an order issued by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, on June 24, 1965, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under clause (14) of the Kerosene Control Order, 1962, read with Condition No. 6 of the licence which required the licensee to comply with any general or special directions issued by the licensing authority from time to time, in regard to the disposal of any stocks of kerosene held by him or in regard to the maintenance of any other records or reference, as required by the Licensing Authority. 4. The order of the District Magistrate dated June 24, 1965, does not specify that the signature of buyers should be tagen. 4. The order of the District Magistrate dated June 24, 1965, does not specify that the signature of buyers should be tagen. As regards the condition of clause (4) of the licence requiring the licensee to maintain a daily sales register showing full details of each sale, I find it impossible to accept that the necessity of showing full details of each sale involves a duty to obtain signatures of the buyers. Details of a sale have nothing whatsoever to do with the signature of the buyer which, it best, might provide evidence to the dealer to fortify himself against an allegation that the entries of the details of sale made by him in the register were spurious or incorrect. I understand the expression details of each sale' to mean quantity sold to a person, the rate at which it was sold, the date on which it was sold and the person who was the buyer. The charge about omission to obtain signatures must, therefore, be held as misconceived. 5. As regards the charge in respect of the omission to enter the address, it may be that mere entry of the name may be insufficient to enable the authorities to verify whether the entry relating to a sale entered in the register was spurious or genuine. But that, by itself, is wholly insufficient to justify the view that failure to enter the address of the buyer must be held to amount to an offence even though all that the retail dealer is required to enter in his register is full details of each sale'. The contents of clause (1) of the order of the District Magistrate dated June 24, 1965, lends support to this interpretation. The relevant part of clause (1) of the aforesaid order runs as follows: "All agents and retail dealers shall maintain full and correct accounts of kerosene oil received and sold by them, giving full address of the retailers and the quantity issued to them together with the price charged ......" The portion of the clause cited above may be divided into two parts. The first part requires all agents, i.e. wholesale dealers, as also retail dealers, to maintain full and correct accounts of kerosene oil received and sold by them. The second part requires the agents to maintain full address of the retailers and the quantity issued to them together with the price charged. The first part requires all agents, i.e. wholesale dealers, as also retail dealers, to maintain full and correct accounts of kerosene oil received and sold by them. The second part requires the agents to maintain full address of the retailers and the quantity issued to them together with the price charged. What deserves to be noticed is the fact that it is full address of the retailer which is required to be maintained and not the full address of those who buy or purchase from the retailers. Further, what is important is the fact that when the authorities required the full address of the person (i.e. retailer) to whom kerosene oil was issued, the requirement was specifically notified in so many words. In all these circumstances, I am unable to accept, for the purposes of holding that a criminal offence has been established, that the requirement of clause (4) of the licence that full details of each sale should be entered in a register included the necessity of entering the address of the buyer also. The charge in respect of the omission to enter the address of the buyers must also, therefore, fail. 6. As regards the charge relating to the omission to display a retail price, I find it impossible to accept that the order of the District Magistrate dated June 24, 1965, on which this charge is found, has been established to have come into force on or before July 17, 1965 on which date the Station Officer In charge, Kotwali, visited the shop of the said order. It does not mention the date on and from which it was to come into force. In fact, the concluding portion of the order contains the following provision: "Publicity of this order shall be made by affixation of copies of this order on the Notice Boards of: (i) Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi. (ii) Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. (iii) Addl. District Magistrate (E). (iv) All Sub-Divisional Magistrate. (v) Town Rationing Officer, Varanasi. (vi) City Magistrate, Varanasi. (vii) Zila Parishad, Varanasi and (viii) District Information Officer, Varanasi." I take this as obvious from the above requirement that the order in question was not intended to take effect until after the order had been published as above. (iii) Addl. District Magistrate (E). (iv) All Sub-Divisional Magistrate. (v) Town Rationing Officer, Varanasi. (vi) City Magistrate, Varanasi. (vii) Zila Parishad, Varanasi and (viii) District Information Officer, Varanasi." I take this as obvious from the above requirement that the order in question was not intended to take effect until after the order had been published as above. As to publication of the order, the only evidence on record is the statement of Sri Rajendra Bahadur Singh (P.W.), an Inspector in the District Supply Officer, Varanasi. He stated that the order had been published. In cross-examination, however, he stated that the order had been affixed on the Notice Board of his office i.e. the office of the Town Rationing Officer, Varanasi. He further stated that he was unable to state whether copies of the order had been affixed on the Notice Boards of the other offices and institutions mentioned in the order. The position, therefore, is that there is no evidence on record that the order in question was published in any manner as regards seven out of the eight places required by the: order itself. Even as regards publication in the office of the Town Rationing Officer, Sri Rajendra Bahadur Singh admitted that he had not been personally in the know of the fact that the order was affixed on the Notice Board of his office. He stated that all that he knew was that a direction had been issued that a copy of the Order be affixed. Further, he made no statement as to the date on which the order was affixed, at even an assertion to the effect that the order had been affixed before July 17, 1965, on which date the checking in the shop of the applicant took place. In these circumstance, it is impossible to hold that the order of the District Magistrate dated June 24, 1965, has been established ta have come into force on or before the date when the offence of failure to display the retail price of the kerosene oil was alleged to have been committed by the applicant. The result is that the conviction of the applicant must be set aside. 7. I, accordingly, allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the applicant and the sentence of one years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him and acquit him of the charge for which he was tried. The result is that the conviction of the applicant must be set aside. 7. I, accordingly, allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the applicant and the sentence of one years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him and acquit him of the charge for which he was tried. The applicant is on bail. The bail bonds furnished by hi mare discharged. He need not surrender. 8. I would like to add that in the view that I have taken, the conviction of Prabhunath, the son of the present applicant, was also misconceived. Prabhunath had, however, been given the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act by the order of the Magistrate dated June 29, 1966. He did file an appeal to the Sessions Court which was heard along with the appeal of the applicant Vishwanath, but both the appeals were dismissed. Since, however, the period for which he was required to furnish a bond and sureties for keeping good conduct and behaviour is due to expire shortly, I do not consider it necessary to pass any orders in respect of Prabhunath.