Judgment A. P. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the concurrent finding of the offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In addition he has also been found guilty for an offence punishable under Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rule and has been asked to pay rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that an inspection was made in the shop of the petitioner in which 425 bags of maize and 13 bags of rice were found. He was selling rice at the higher price than the price fixed. He did not sell maize whatsoever during the course of a month. There are also allegations that he did not maintain the stock register properly. It has been stated that con signments received from Forbesganj have not been entered in the stock register. 3. Learned Counsel has stated that the prosecution has failed to establish that any price was fixed with regard to the sale of rice. The evidence of one prosecution witness that there was an order of the District Magistrate fixing the price of the rice will not bestow any legal obligation on the part of the petitioner for the breach of the order and that will not result into any penal consequences. 4. In addition that maize had not been sold is not an offence. Non-selling of the maize could have been dependent upon many factors and I am afraid that the prosecution is completely misconceived. 5. With regard to the non-maintenance of stock register, it appears that certain consignments from Forbesganj were despatched through the Bijak dated 17-5-1973 and had been received by the petitioner on 28-5-1973. Since the Bijak is dated 17-5-1973, therefore, it could not be entered on 17-5-1973 but rightly it has been entered on 28-5-1973 when the stock has been received. Therefore, to make a grievance that the petitioner did not maintain the stock register property is in my opinion not a valid ground for prosecution. 6. Since the Bijak is dated 17-5-1973, therefore, it could not be entered on 17-5-1973 but rightly it has been entered on 28-5-1973 when the stock has been received. Therefore, to make a grievance that the petitioner did not maintain the stock register property is in my opinion not a valid ground for prosecution. 6. With respect to Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rule, it appears to be misconceived as it is not with respect to any of the misconduct attributed to the petitioner at all. 7. In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner is set aside. Application allowed.