JUDGMENT : D. P. Sinha, J. The petitioner, Gurubachan Singh, has prayed for quashing the Police investigation in Mal salami P. S. Case No. 17 dated 11-5-1914 and the connected proceeding in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City in G. R. case No. 488/74, substantially on the ground that the first information report on the basis of which the Police investigation is proceeding does not disclose any offence at all under Section 7 of the Essential, Commodities Act or under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules for which, the Police have instituted the said case against the petitioner. 2. In the first information report the allegations were that a flying squad of the Food Section headed by a Magistrate and assisted by an inspector of Police and certain others conducted some raids on 9-5-74 in Maroof Ganj area of Patna. During the course of that raid the shop of Santokh Singh, said to be the brother of the petitioner, situated on the main road in Purab Darbaza and two god owns belonging to Santokh Singh and the petitioner, located in the house on the ground floor of the house of one Jawahar Lall were also raided, but because neither Santokh Singh nor the petitioner was present and it had become night time so the said officials put their seal on the locks of the godown and went away. On the following day they again came to the god owns. They found the seals to be intact but no body was present and, while they were preparing to break open the locks, a lawyer with a Vakalatnama appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Santokh Singh and produced the keys of the god owns with which they were opened. On a search 432 pieces of 'Sunlight' soap were recovered. There was no board to indicate the price and the stock of the soap which was there in the godown. On a search 432 pieces of 'Sunlight' soap were recovered. There was no board to indicate the price and the stock of the soap which was there in the godown. It was alleged that by not displaying the price and stock of the soap of the godown, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of Bihar Essential commodities-Other than Foodgrains-Prices and Stocks (Display and Control) ORDER :, 1967, which is an ORDER :made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Control ORDER :) and, therefore the petitioner had committed an offence which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Clause 3 of the control ORDER :provides that every dealer, whether wholesaler or retailer of a scheduled commodity, shall obtain a price-list showing the wholesale price and the retail price of the commodity purchased by him or obtained by him from every manufacturer, importer or distributor where such prices are fixed by the manufacturer. Clause 4 of the ORDER :lays down that every dealer shall display at a .conspicuous part of the premises where he carries on his business, the price-list and stock position of the scheduled commodities specified in Schedules I and II annexed to that ORDER :, held in stock by him for sale, in a manner so as to be easily accessible for consultation by any customer. A reference may also be made to Clause 5 of the Control ORDER :which says that no dealer, unless previously authorised in this behalf by the District Magistrate, Additional Collector, Special Officer Incharge Rationing, Patna or the Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, shall withhold from sale or refuse to sell to any person any scheduled commodity specified in Schedule II ordinarily kept by him for sale. It may be mentioned that, soap is one of the commodities mentioned in Schedules I and II, both,. 4. The above provisions make it amply clear that the price list and the 'stock position are required to be displayed at a conspicuous part of the premises where the dealer carries on his business. It may be mentioned that, soap is one of the commodities mentioned in Schedules I and II, both,. 4. The above provisions make it amply clear that the price list and the 'stock position are required to be displayed at a conspicuous part of the premises where the dealer carries on his business. "Dealer" bas been defined in Sub clause (c) of Clause 2 of the Control ORDER :which runs as follows :- "Dealer" means a person carrying on business for the purchase, sale OF 'distribution of scheduled commodity, whether wholesale or retail and whether or not in conjunction with any other business; and includes an-agent of the dealer". 5. In the first place there is no allegation in the first information report that the petitioner was carrying on business for the purchase, sale or storage for sale or distribution of 'Sunlight'. soap Secondly, the raid bad been conducted in the night when none was present near the god own which was• found to be locked. This means that no business was being transacted at that particular hour. In the circumstances a non display of price list and stock position at that time cannot be said to be in violation of the provisions of Clause 5 of the Control ORDER :. It is quite obvious that the said provisions are meant to give information to purchasers with regard to the availability of the commodity in the shop. When the shop or the god own remains closed and no business is being transacted there can be no relevance of the display of the price list and the stock position at that time. The following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathmul-V. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported in A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 2198, though made in regard to a matter which had arisen out of an ORDER :made under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Misa appears to support the view expressed by me : “.... ....The Rajasthan (display of price of Essential Commodities) ORDER :, 1966 made it imperative for the petitioners to display price and stock list but. if the shop was not open on the day under consideration the petitioners could not be expected to display the prices or stock list on that day. ....The Rajasthan (display of price of Essential Commodities) ORDER :, 1966 made it imperative for the petitioners to display price and stock list but. if the shop was not open on the day under consideration the petitioners could not be expected to display the prices or stock list on that day. In so far as it was assumed to be open, an extraneous consideration had entered into the case. If it was assumed that such ground existed when, in fact, it obviously did not, this ground was vitiated. This defect was sufficient to vitiate the "whole detention ORDER :for introduction of an extraneous non-existent ground.s 6. It may also be mentioned incidentally that the first information report does not allege that the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of the Control ORDER :. 7. Since the first information report on the basis of which the Police is investigating the case against the petitioner does not disclose the commission of any offence either under Section 7 of the Essential' Commodities Act or under rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules or under any other provision of law the petition is allowed and the Police investigation in Malsalami P. S. case No. 17 dated 11-5-1974 is hereby quashed. 8. The petitioner is discharged from his bail bond. The each security if any deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Application allowed.