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. 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 in the columns of the reserved stock, the stock position had been indicated by the accused by chalk. However, in the columns meant for indicating the stock position of the remaining goods, there was no indication about the stock position and the columns were blank. However, in the columns meant for indicating the stock position of the remaining goods, there was no indication about the stock position and the columns were blank. The learned Sessions judge also took the view that even if the explanation given by the accused that the chalk markings made in the columns indicating the stock position of the goods had been accidently rubbed off, was accepted, the accused could not escape his liability. In his view, it was the duty of the accused to have kept a watch on the board and in case the entries were rubbed off, he should have immediately made fresh entries. He having failed to do so, failed to exhibit a list showing the stock of different classes or varieties of scheduled commodities, and as such, he was liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the order made by the learned Magistrate. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that under clause 3 (3) of the Adesh, a dealer is required to exhibit a list showing the stock of different classes or varieties of scheduled commodities i.e., a list showing that classes or varieties of essential goods are available in his stock. In order to indicate the classes or varieties of scheduled goods that are available in the stock, it is not necessary to mention their number. In the present case, a list of scheduled commodities available in the applicant's stock had been exhibited. This was sufficient compliance with the provisions of clause 3 (3) of the Adesh. In the circumstances, the applicant could not be said to have contravened the provisions of the Adesh, merely because the list exhibited by him did not show the units of the scheduled commodities available in his stock. I am not inclined to accept this argument. Clause 3 (3) of the Adesh requires the dealer to exhibit a list showing stocks of different classes or varieties of scheduled commodities and not a list of scheduled commodities available in his stock. Stock of the scheduled commodities held can be indicated in a list only by mentioning the names of those goods as also their number or quantity. Clause 3 (3) of the Adesh requires the dealer to exhibit a list showing stocks of different classes or varieties of scheduled commodities and not a list of scheduled commodities available in his stock. Stock of the scheduled commodities held can be indicated in a list only by mentioning the names of those goods as also their number or quantity. The stock-board, when it was recovered, did not indicate the number of units of the scheduled commodities held by the applicant, and, as such, it was not a list showing stock of goods held within the meaning of clause 3 (3) of the Adesh. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant then contended that the learned Sessions Judge did not reject the explanation offered by the applicant that he had made the entries about the number of articles on the stock board, but those entries might have been accidently rubbed off. He contended that in case the explanation given by the accused is accepted, the position will be that he had made those entries in the morning but by inadvertence or accidently, the entries got obliterated. In such a case, he may not be attributed with guilty knowledge, and as such no offence under clause 3 (3) of the Adesh would be made out. He relied upon the case of Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 43, wherein it has been held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. After considering the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that an offence under Section 7 of the Act necessarily involves a guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence. In that case, the accused was a dealer in food-grains and had made an application for a licence under the Madhya Pradesh food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, and had also deposited the requisite licence fee. There was no intimation to him that his application had been rejected. He purchased food-grains from time to time and submitted returns to the licensing authority showing the grains purchased by him. The Inspector chacked the godown of the dealer and found that he had stored food-grains without holding any licence. There was no intimation to him that his application had been rejected. He purchased food-grains from time to time and submitted returns to the licensing authority showing the grains purchased by him. The Inspector chacked the godown of the dealer and found that he had stored food-grains without holding any licence. The dealer was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and was ultimately convicted by the High Court for contravening the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Food grains Dealers Licensing Order. In appeal, the Supreme Court held that the conviction of the dealer had to be set aside as he was under a bona fide impression that the licence in regard to which he had made an application and deposited the requisite fees, had been granted, though the same had actually not been sent to him. It was under this impression that he had stored the grains. In the circumstances, it was held that the accused lacked the necessary mens rea, which was an ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 8. If the explanation as given by the applicant is accepted, the position will be that he had complied with clause 3 (3) of the Adesh in the beginning of the day and if the entries made by him got accidently obliterated, without his knowledge, he cannot be attributed with the guilty knowledge. It will not be possible to say that in such circumstances, he knowingly contravened the provisions of clause 3 (3) of the Adesh, and the necessary mens rea would be lacking. 9. After going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that he proceeded with the case on the footing that even if the explanation of the accused was accepted, he would be guilty of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He did not record any finding that the explanation given by the accused was not reasonable and deserved to be rejected. As explained by me above, the learned Sessions judge, was not right in holding that an offence against the accused would be made out even if the explanation given by him was accepted as correct. 10. It is, therefore, necessary for me to go into the question whether the explanation given by the accused is reasonable and deserves to be accepted. 10. It is, therefore, necessary for me to go into the question whether the explanation given by the accused is reasonable and deserves to be accepted. It is an admitted case that the entries on the stock-board used to be made by chalks, which could be obliterated accidently. Sri R.D. Pathak, the authorised officer, in his statement admitted that, when he visited the shop of the accused, at that time, certain repairs were being carried out in the shop. The accused had admittedly shown the stock position of the reserved stock on the same board. There seems to be force in the argument raised by the applicant that if he showed the stock position of the reserved stock, there is no reason why he should not have shown the stock position of the remaining stock. It may be that if the appellant had some dishonest intention, he would have shown the stock position of the remaining stock wrongly, but not showing any stock does not appear to be probable. Although some of the prosecution witnesses stated that nothing was written in the columns meant for indicating the stock position of the remaining stock, the investigating officer, when questioned on this point, was not able to say whether anything was written in that column or not. In the circumstances, the possibility of some faint markings remaining, after the markings by chalks got accidently rubbed off, on the stock board, at the time of its recovery by Sri Pathak, cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the fact that certain repairs were going on in the shop, the explanation given by the accused that after he had disclosed the stock position on the board in the morning, the same got obliterated accidently cannot be said to be an unreasonable explanation which deserves to be rejected outright. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that the accused deserves the benefit of doubt on this count also. 11. In the result, I allow this application in revision, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant by the courts below. He is acquitted of the offence with which he had been charged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.