JUDGMENT 1. - The revision is against the judgment dated 7.5.1976. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi affirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 307 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening the provisions of the Rajasthan (Display of Stock and Price of the Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. 2. The facts which are not in dispute before me are these : That Shri Gopal Mohan Mathur, Enforcement Officer, Sirohi inspected the godown of M/s. Chunnilal Jorawarmal, Sirohi on 15.7.74 in village Goeli and found 1896 half-bar 501 brand soap and 2273 cakes of Bonus soap there. On the same day the shop of accused-petitioner at Sirohi was inspected and it was found that the Stock which was kept in Goeli godown was not displayed by the shop-keeper at his place of business in Sirohi. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that it was not obligatory on the part of the accused-petitioner to display the stock position of the goods which were lying in the godown at village Goeli at his shop in Sirohi. The accused-petitioner was required to display his stock position of the goods which were contained or kept at his business premises i. e. the shop at Sirohi only. 4. I have considered the argument which ought to prevail. It could not be said that the godown was a part of the business permises of Sirohi. The godown and the shop were two distinct premises and, therefore, the accused would have probably otherwise contravened the law if he has incorporated his stocks lying in the godown at village Goelie in the stock position of his soap at Sirohi. I am fortified in my opinion by the observations made in Dilip Pipara v. The State of West Bengal, (1977 Cr. L. J. 1653) :- "Rule 3 of the Order makes it incumbent on the part of a dealer of essential commodities to display prominently in a shop or showroom a list indicating inter alia, the opening stock of such commodities and the retail selling price thereof every day. Admittedly, the plaac namely the godown of Nandadula Singh, where the bulbs in question were found cannot be said to be a shop or showroom. As such the petitioner was under no obligation to display a list in the said godown in accordance with R. 3 of the order." 5. Admittedly, the plaac namely the godown of Nandadula Singh, where the bulbs in question were found cannot be said to be a shop or showroom. As such the petitioner was under no obligation to display a list in the said godown in accordance with R. 3 of the order." 5. Since I am of the opinion that the godown at village Goeli was not a part of the shop of the accused-petitioner at Sirohi, the stock stored in the godown at Geoli should not have been included and displayed in the stock position of the shop at Sirohi. Thus the accused has committed no offence. 6. In the result the revision filed by accused petitioner is accepted and he is acquitted of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The forfeited amount of Rs. 5,905.77 be returned to the petitioner. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.Revision accepted. *******