JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Having heard Mr. A.C. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the order of conviction passed against the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, with a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months, passed by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court, must be set aside in the absence of evidence to show that on 7-6-1976, i.e. the day on which the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 4) visited the shop, of the Petitioner, the latter, dealing in essential commodities, viz. tyres and tubes, had his shop open and in view of the clear statements made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 lending assurance to the case of the defence that it was a holiday for the shop of the Petitioner and over-looking the fact the Petitioner had no legal obligation to display the position of the stock of tyres and tubes and the prices thereof in the Board on a day on which his shop was closed. Clause 3 of the Order alleged to have been contravened reads: Every dealer of essential commodities shall display prominently in the shops or show rooms a list indicating the opening stock of such commodities and retail selling prices thereof each day and indicate on each unit of item of the said commodities, where possible, the sale price by having the sale price either printed on the commodities or on the container or packet thereof, or by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a label on such commodity. The expression 'each day' occurring therein would mean each day on which the shop is open for transactions and' would not include the day in a week on which the shop of a dealer of essential commodities is closed. Both the trial and the appellate Courts lost sight of this important aspect and recorded an order of conviction which was Illegal and misconceived. 2. Both the trial and the appellate Courts lost sight of this important aspect and recorded an order of conviction which was Illegal and misconceived. 2. I would accordingly allow the revision and set aside the order of conviction and sentences passed against the Petitioner with a direction that the seized articles shall be returned to the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed