JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Upon hearing Mr. P.K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the Appellant and Mr. N.G. Panigrahi, the learned Counsel for the Respondent. I am of the view, for the reasons to follow, that there is no case for interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by Mr. C.R. Dash, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatrapur, finding the Respondent to be not guilty of the charge u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (for short, the 'Order'). 2. The prosecution had examined three witnesses to establish its case against the Respondent a dealer in essential commodities at Chatrapur in the district of Ganjam, that on August 12, 1975, he bad displayed in the price and stock board that he had in his stock 15 kilograms of cocoanut oil, although he bad, in fact. 13 kilograms of cocoanut oil in his stock and had displayed in that board that he had in his stock 19 dry batteries bearing No. 1055 although he had, in his stock, 21 such batteries. The plea of the Respondent was that he had correctly displayed in the board the stock he had. The trial court held that the charge had not been brought home to the Respondent. 3. Mr. Mohanty has not assailed the finding of acquittal with regard to the batteries. He has submitted that the stock of cocoanut oil found in the stock did not tally with the quantity of stock displayed in the board and, therefore, the Respondent was guilty of the charge. Mr. Panigrahi has, however, submitted that the finding of the trial court in this regard cannot be assailed as the Respondent had correctly displayed the stock position at the commencement of the business hours. 4. Mr. Panigrahi has, however, submitted that the finding of the trial court in this regard cannot be assailed as the Respondent had correctly displayed the stock position at the commencement of the business hours. 4. Clause 3 of the Order at the relevant time would read thus: Display of list - 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. A dealer in essential commodities within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Order is required to indicate the opening stock of essential commodities and the retail selling prices thereof each day. The order does not cast upon him a legal obligation to show reduction in the quantity of any essential commodity from time to time during the course of the day of business after each transaction of sale. In the absence of evidence as to the quantity of cocoanut oil which might have been sold after the business commenced on the day, the case of the Respondent that he had displayed the stock of cocoanut oil correctly in the board at the commencement of the business for the day could not be thrown out. The stock register had not been seized. The sale register, if any, had not been seized either. The Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 3) had visited the shop at 12.30 p.m. and not at the time of commencement of the business for the day. The prosecution had not established that the opening stock of cocoanut oil at the commencement of the business for the day did not tally with the stock shown in the board. That apart, as would appear from the evidence of the Supervisor, of Supplies (P.W. 2), the seized cocoanut oil found in the stock had not properly been weighed and according to him, the stock of cocoanut oil weighed about 13 kilograms. P.W. 1 had been put leading questions by the prosecution u/s 154 of the Evidence Act. That apart, as would appear from the evidence of the Supervisor, of Supplies (P.W. 2), the seized cocoanut oil found in the stock had not properly been weighed and according to him, the stock of cocoanut oil weighed about 13 kilograms. P.W. 1 had been put leading questions by the prosecution u/s 154 of the Evidence Act. His evidence was that the seized articles had not been weighed and he could not say about the exact stock, of cocoanut oil. Regard being had to these features in the evidence, it could not be said that the Respondent had violated Clause 3 of the Order in respect of this article. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, unreasonable or perverse calling for interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal. 5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed