JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Dev Chand, against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, in criminal appeal No. 99 of 1975 of his court by which, the petitioners conviction under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was upheld, but the sentence of Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months was reduced to a term of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner, was that his shop was inspected by S. I., Bhanwarlal on 8.7.75 at about 10.30 a.m. and, upon checking, it was found that list of prices of articles for sale on 8.7.75 had not been displayed conspicuously in form A, at a place near the entrance of the business premises. The list of articles which had been displayed at the shop was of the previous day i.e. 7.7.75 and the stock of soap-cakes of different make shown therein, did not tally with the stock of those articles actually found in the shop. Bhanwarlal. S.T. checked the stock and found 439 cakes of soap in excess of the stock of the cakes of soap displayed in the list of prices dated 7.7.75. Hence, a complaint was made against the petitioner in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur, who tried the petitioner summarily and found him guilty of the charge. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence but his conviction was upheld and his sentence was reduced, as indicated above. Hence, the petitioner has come up in revision to this court. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. P. R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.S. Achariya, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the petitioner was guilty of contravention of Clause 3 of Rajasthan (Display of Price and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), which is punishable under section 3/7 of the Act. N.S. Achariya, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the petitioner was guilty of contravention of Clause 3 of Rajasthan (Display of Price and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), which is punishable under section 3/7 of the Act. In my opinion, the petitioner could not be safely held to have contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the said order because it is established from the prosecution evidence itself, that the day i.e. 8.7.75, on which, his shop was inspected by the S. I., Bhanwarlal was observed as a holiday by the petitioner as is evident from the statement of P W. 1, Jan Mohammad and from inspection-visit-book, Exhibit P/11. The shop was closed on 8.7.75 as the petitioner used to observe weekly holiday on every Tuesday. Jan Mohammad, P. W. 1, clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the shop of the petitioner was closed, when S. I., Bhanwarlal had come to check it and that it was opened by the petitioner at the instance of S. I. Bhanwarlal. In view of this admission, I am reluctant to hold that the petitioner as a dealer was bound to display a list of price of articles, he was dealing in, even on holiday at a place near to the entrance of his shop. Clause 3 of the order clearly lays down that every dealer shall display such a list during the hours of business. The word "during the hours of business" clearly mean that when a weekly holiday was observed by the dealer, he need not display a list of price of articles he deals in at his shop. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was not guilty of contravention of Clause 3 of the order and, the courts below were not justified in holding him guilty of the offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Act. 5. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and his conviction and sentence are set-aside and, he is acquitted of the offence under section 3/7 of the Act. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender his bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled. Fine if deposited shall be refunded to him according to the law.Petition allowed. *******