JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The accused was charged u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Order of 1973') and also for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974 (hereinafter called the "Order of 1974"). He was tried in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur who convicted' him u/s 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 and sentenced him to R.I. for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to S.I. for one week. The learned Magistrate however acquitted him of the charge for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1974. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack and against that part of the order by which the accused was not found guilty for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1974 the State filed Government Appeal No. 5/78 before this Court. By order of this Court the records of the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge was called for and numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 23/78. The Government Appeal and the Criminal Appeal were heard together and this common judgment will govern both the cases. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: M/s. Kailash Chandra Sahu and Umesh Chandra Sahu were having a grocery shop at Dhanmandal station bazar. Prosecution alleges that the accused was the Manager of the shop and was looking after the business. On 24-5-1974 at about 10.00 a.m. the Supervisor of Supplies (P.W. 4), the Assistant Civil Supply Officer (P.W. 1) and two Supply Inspectors (P.Ws. 2 and 3) visited the shop of the accused and verified the stock of essential commodities. On verification, 81.28 quintals of black gram (Biri), 218 numbers of Jeep Torch Cell No. 505 and 96.45 quintals of groundnut were found in the shop. It was further found that the groundnuts and the pulses (black grams) in stock were more than the authorised limit and no sanction of the Controller or the Collector of the District had been obtained for storing the same. It was further found that the groundnuts and the pulses (black grams) in stock were more than the authorised limit and no sanction of the Controller or the Collector of the District had been obtained for storing the same. Prosecution further alleged that the accused had not displayed the stock position of the essential commodities and the retail price thereof. The stocks of the aforesaid commodities were weighed in presence of the witnesses and the accused and were seized as per seizure list, Ext. 1. The statement of the accused was recorded and seized articles were kept in jima of the accused. After investigation prosecution report was submitted against the accused: 3. The accused in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure took the plea that the first M/s. K.C. Sahu and U.C. Sahu is a wholesale dealer and he was neither the Manager nor the Salesman of the shop and he had nothing to do with the shop. The further plea of the accused was that the stock of essential commodities were not weighed and he was compelled to sign in the seizure list (Ext. I) and the stock registers, Exts. 4 and 5. He further stated that his statement (Ext. 3) was recorded under threat. He alleged that the case was filed at the instance of one Dusasan Jena, the then M.L.A. of the area due to previous enmity as he did not support Dusasan Jena in the last. Assembly election and worked against him. He further alleged that P.W. 4 (the complainant) who is the Supervisor of Supplies, is a relation of Dusasan Jena. Prosecution examined four witnesses in support of the case. P.W. 1 is the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the Inspectors of Supplies and P.W. 4 is the Supervisor of Supplies, who filed the prosecution report. The accused examined one D.W. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant (in Crl. A. 23/78) submitted that the Appellant is no way connected with the shop which belongs to M/s. Kailash Ch. Sahu. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Appellant was the Manager/Salesman of the firm, there has been no violation of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 as the civil supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened. Sahu. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Appellant was the Manager/Salesman of the firm, there has been no violation of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 as the civil supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened. The Appellant being a wholesaler which is admitted by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination can keep 50 quintals of ground nut seeds and 400 quintals of black gram (Biri) and there' were no excess quantities of groundnut seeds and black grams in the shop, as alleged. Moreover 96.45 quintals of groundnut (with the outer cover) were found in the shop. So there is no evidence as to what was the actual quantity of the groundnut seeds found by the supply staff and in any view of the matter the Appellant-Respondent is entitled to acquittal. 5. On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that under Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 it is incumbent on the part of the dealer of essential commodities to display a list indicating the opening stock of such commodities and the retail selling prices thereof, but this admittedly has not been done by the Appellant. Even if he is a wholesaler he having kept 96.45 quintals of groundnut i.e. more than the prescribed limit has violated Clause 3 of the Order of 1974. 6. Regarding the allegation of non-display of a list indicating the opening stock of the essential commodities and the retail selling prices thereof, there is evidence that the supply staff reached the shop and verified the stock when it was just being opened by the accused. P.W. 1 has. admitted in cross-examination that the business transaction in the shop of the accused did not commence by the time of their visit and on weighment they found the quantity tallying with the accounts maintained by the accused. Thus it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was no discrepancy in the stock of the essential commodities with that of the accounts maintained by the firm and the civil supply staff visited the shop when the business transaction of the shop did not commence. Thus it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was no discrepancy in the stock of the essential commodities with that of the accounts maintained by the firm and the civil supply staff visited the shop when the business transaction of the shop did not commence. After the shop is opened some time must be required to make the relevant entry in the board indicating the opening stock of the essential commodities and the retail selling prices thereof, as required under Clause 3 of the Order of 1973. As the supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened, the accused did not get any time to make the relevant entries in the board. In view of the fact that the stock tallied with the accounts maintained by the accused and there was no discrepancy in the stock and considering the above circumstance that the supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened, I am of the opinion that the accused cannot be held guilty for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973. 7. From the evidence of P.W. 1 it is clear that the owners of the shop are wholesale dealers. So according to Clause 3 of the Order of 1974 a wholesaler can keep 400 quintals of pulses and 50 quintals of ground nut seeds. So the black grams (Biri) found in the shop were within the prescribed limit. Regarding the stock of groundnut seeds it is the case of the prosecution that 96.45 quintals of groundnut were found in the shop and this is beyond the prescribed limit as the prescribed limit is 50 quintals. In item 3 of the 1st Schedule of the Order of 1974 "Ground nut seed" has been mentioned, but there is no mention of "Groundnut". According to Websters New World Dictionary "seed means "the part of a flowering plant that contains the embryo and will develop into a new plant if sown, any part as a bulb from which a new plant will grow, a small, seed like fruit, seeds used for sowing, source;". According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language 'Seed' means "the fertilised, matured ovule of a flowering plant containing an embryo or rudimentary plant-any propagative part of a plant including tubers, bulbs etc. as preserved for growing a new crop". According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language 'Seed' means "the fertilised, matured ovule of a flowering plant containing an embryo or rudimentary plant-any propagative part of a plant including tubers, bulbs etc. as preserved for growing a new crop". Thus it is absolutely clear that "groundnut seeds' means 'not the whole groundnut with the cover but only the seeds inside it'. According to Clause 3 of the Order of 1974 a wholesaler can keep 50 quintals of groundnut seeds. But nothing has been established in this case as to what will be the actual quantity of the seeds (if cover is separated) from out of the 96.45 quintals of ground nuts found in the shop of the accused. So in my view the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had kept the groundnut seeds more than the prescribed limit in the shop and thereby violated Clause 3 of the Order of 1974. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the argument of both sides, I am of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 7 of the Act for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1973 and for contravention of Clause 3 of the Order of 1974 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the result, therefore, Government Appeal No. 5/78 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 23/78 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside. He be released from his bail bond. The seized properties be released in favour of the Appellant. Final Result : Allowed