JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 18th of October, 1976 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act were maintained. The prosecution case was as follows:- 2. On 23.9.1974 at about 1.10 p. m. Satyanarayan Calla, Enforcement Officer, Barmer inspected the shop of the petitioner namely M/s. Bhagwan Dass & Brother at Barmer and found that the board displaying the price list was not in conformity with prescribed form to be made under the Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner committed no offence because he duly displayed the prices list substantially in the prescribed form. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Petitioner was at least technically of the offence because the price list displayed by the petitioner was not strictly in accordance with the prescribed form. I have considered the rival contentions. To appreciate them it will be useful to reproduce the prescribed form:- dz0la0 oLrq dk uke oLrq dh DokfyVh o esd izfr oLrq ewY; ewY; vfHk;qfDRr;kWa 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. The form in which the prices were displayed is not before this Court. However, the grievance of the prosecution appears to be with regard to the omission of column Nos. 3, 5 and 6 of the prescribed form. In my opinion the petitioners had displayed the price list in the prescribed form because of the following reasons:- 1. Column No. 6 was not necessary because it only related to the remarks column. (ii) Column No. 5 related to the price. My attention was drawn to the statement of P. W. 2 Satyanarayan. Enforcement Officer in which he admitted that the rate of the Articles were written on the board. Thus it could not be said that there was no compliance of the column No. 5. (iii) With regard to the column No. 3, it appears that the petitioner was under no legal compulsion to display the stock position. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2453/1974 M/s. Sohanlal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan decided on 15.3.1975 , it was held that a dealer was not required to display the stock position. (iii) With regard to the column No. 3, it appears that the petitioner was under no legal compulsion to display the stock position. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2453/1974 M/s. Sohanlal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan decided on 15.3.1975 , it was held that a dealer was not required to display the stock position. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was of the view that the omission of column No. 3 was no offence. 5. Thus, a comparison between the prescribed form to the display of price list and the form in which the petitioner displayed the price list would show that there was no material departure from the prescribed form. The only material omission was, that the petitioner did not display the stock position but this departure was permissible in view of the fact that under the law he was not obliged to display the stock position. 6. As a result of this discussion, I am of the view that the finding of the learned lower courts that the petitioner did not display the price list in the prescribed form was perverse and has to be set aside and consequently conviction of the petitioner is also to be set aside. 7. The revision petition is therefore, accepted. The judgment of the learned lower court is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 3/7 of the (Essential Commodities Act. Fine if deposited may be refunded to the petitioner and bail bonds are hereby discharged.Revision accepted. *******