JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 2nd July, 1975. The accused-petitioner was convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that the accused-petitioner did not contravene any of the provisions of the Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 The shop of the accused petitioner was checked on 20th February, 1974 by the Enforcement Inspector. The prosecution case against the accused petitioner was that though there was a list displaying the price, but on the search of the house, 29 tins of ground-nut oil were found which were not entered in the stock register. It was also contended that these tins were received at the time of the checking by the Enforcement Inspector, and could be entered into the stock register' only in the evening after the tins had been received in full. It was also contended that the provisions of Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966, have not been correctly interpreted. It was also contended that no offence has been committed by the accused petitioner. 3. Mr. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state, has contended that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are in conformity with law and' that no interference is called for on the revisional side. 4. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 5. By order No. F. 37 (49) Ind./A/66, dated Jaipur, August 19, 1966, published in Rajasthan Gazette on the same, day, the Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) order, 1966, was published. Clause 3 of the said order of 1966, reads as under:- 3. 5. By order No. F. 37 (49) Ind./A/66, dated Jaipur, August 19, 1966, published in Rajasthan Gazette on the same, day, the Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) order, 1966, was published. Clause 3 of the said order of 1966, reads as under:- 3. Display of list of Prices : Not later than fifteen days from the commencement of this order every dealer shall during the hours of his business display conspicuously in Form "A" a list of prices of articles he deals in at a place as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible: Provided that numerals to be used in the list of prices shall be either in the Devnagari form of numerals or any international form of India numerals : "Provided further that in the case of an article which is added to the Schedule at any time after the commencement of this Order, the period of fifteen days shall be counted from the date on which such article is added to the Schedule." Form A attached to this Order reads as under : FORM'A' Name of the DealerPremises of BusinessList of prices displayed in accordance with Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. S/No. Name of Article Quality/makes of article Unit of Price Price Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 This order was amended by order no. 37 (49) Udyog/Ka/66, dated - December 8, 1971. By this amendment order, the Order was amended to read as under "Rajasthan (Display of Prices & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. S/No. Name of Article Quality/makes of article Unit of Price Price Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 This order was amended by order no. 37 (49) Udyog/Ka/66, dated - December 8, 1971. By this amendment order, the Order was amended to read as under "Rajasthan (Display of Prices & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. Form'A' was also amended to read as under:- izi= ( d ) O;kikjh dk uke dkjckj ifjlj fnukad ekl rFkk o"kZ jktLFkku@vko';d oLrq ewY; rFkk LVkd izn'kZu@vkns'k] 1966 ds [k.M 3 ds vuqlkj iznf'kZr ewY; vkSj LVkd dh lwphA dz0la0 oLrq dk uke oLrq dh DokfyVh@esd izfr bZdkbZ ewY; oLrq dk fnol ds izkjEHk ij LVkd vfHk;qfDr;kWa 1 2 3 4 5 6 " oLrq dh izR;sd DokfyVh@esd i`Fkd&i`Fkd fn[kyk;s tkus pkfg;s rkfd DokfyVh@esd dk i`Fkd&i`Fkd ewY;@LVkd minf'kZr gks ldsA " DykWt 3 vkWQ nh ,esUMsM vkMZj jhM~l ,t vUMj %& " 3- ewY; lwph o LVkd dk izn'kZu & izR;sd O;kikjh bl vkns'k ds izkjEHk ls 15 fnu esa vius dkjckj ifjokj ds izos'k lSy ds ;FkklEHko fudV dkjokj ds ?k.Vs esa lgt Nki :i ls izi= " d " esa mu oLrqvksa dh lwph esa iznf'kZr djsxk ftudk fd og O;kikj djrk gSA ijUrq ewY; lwph esa izLrqr fd;s tkus okys vad ;k rks nsoukxjh Lo:i ds vad gksxs ;k Hkkjrh; vadks ds fdlh vUrjkZ"V~h; Hkk"kk esa gksaxsA ijUrq ;g fdlh vkSj ;k ,slh oLrq dh n'kk esa tks bl vkns'k ds izkjEHk ds i'pkr~ fdlh le; vuqlwph esa tksM+h] tks iUnzg fnu dh dkykof/k ml rkjh[k ls laxfBr dh tkosxh ftldks fd mDr vuqlwph esa tksM+h tkosA " 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that previous to this order did not require the dealer to show the stocks. It was also contended that if the amended clause 3 did not contain any directions to show the stock on the particular date, only amendment in the heading of the clause does not cast a legal obligation on the dealer. It was further contended that as per form 'A' as amended, only stock had to be shown was in contravention of clause 3 and, therefore, is not valid and could not cast any legal obligation on the dealer. The attention of the Court was drawn to Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1975. The attention of the Court was drawn to Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1975. Clause 3 of this order reads as under : "3. Display of list of prices and stocks of articles : On and after the date of commencement of this order, every dealer shall during the hours of his business display conspicuously in Form 'A' a list of prices and stock of articles he deals in at a place as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible. Provided that numerals to be used in the list of prices and stocks shall be either in the Davnagari form of numerals or of any international form of Indian numerals. Provided further that in the case of an article which is added to the schedule at any time after the commencement of this order, the period of fifteen days shall be counted from the date of which such article is added to the Schedule. 7. In this clause there is a positive direction for showing the stock of the article in which the dealer deals. In No such obligation has been cast upon the dealer in the order of 1966. Even the amendment made in 1971 does not incorporate these directions in Clause 3 of the said order. 8. Mr. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has drawn the attention of the Court to Bhagwati Das v. The State of Rajasthan (1) 1974 WLN 839. Mr. Mathur has placed reliance on para 7 of this ruling. This was a case under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Though, there is a reference in para 7 that the dealer should display the stock position also, yet no reference has been made to any clause of any order. This ruling is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on the facts on the present case. 9. In the instant case, all that has to be seen is whether Clause 3 of Order, 1966 casts a duty on the dealer to display the stock also. The original order did not contain any direction regarding the display of stock. After the amendment of 1971, Form A has been changed, and stock have to be shown as contemplated in Form A. The heading of Clause 3 has also been changed, and it makes a reference to stock. The original order did not contain any direction regarding the display of stock. After the amendment of 1971, Form A has been changed, and stock have to be shown as contemplated in Form A. The heading of Clause 3 has also been changed, and it makes a reference to stock. The language of Clause 3 has not been changed, though nomenclature of order itself has been changed to include display of prices and stocks also. 10. Having given my most anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that the conviction of the accused petitioner is wholly unwarranted. The Government probably noticed the lacuna and amended the order in 1975, of which clause 3 has been reproduced above in which a positive direction has been contained In the absence of a specific direction in Clause 3 of Order, 1966. a penal liability could not be imposed only because the nomenclature of the order has been changed, or that the heading of clause 3 has been changed, or that Form 'A has been changed All these amendments must have a legal sanction behind it. The learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any legal sanction authorising these amendments either in the nomenclature of the order, or in the heading of clause 3, or the amendment in Form A. A there was no liability in the order itself which casts an obligation on the dealer to show or exhibit the stocks on that particular day, no offence has been committed by him. This lacuna has been removed by the subsequent order of 1975. 11. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the accused-petitioner is accordingly set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has stated that the tins of the groundnut oil were auctioned and the sale proceeds were deposited with the Government. As the accused has not committed any offence the amount deposited with the Government is directed the refunded to the accused-petitioner. *******