JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition directed against the judgment dated September 10,1984 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bharatpur, The learned Judge under his aforesaid judgment partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners and held the accused guilty for not display the price of certain goods in the price list exhibited in his business premises (shop) The learned trial court under its judgment dated January 3, 1983 had convicted the accused under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for contravention of clause (3) of Rajasthan (Display of prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 (For short, the Order). The trial court had sentenced each of the, accused petitioners to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000/. or in default to pay fine, to further suffer two months' rigorous imprisonment. He also ordered that 47 quintals 60 Kg. ground nuts and 88 .quintals mustard seeds be forfeited. Learned Appellate court as already stated earlier maintained the conviction of the accused petitioners, but sentenced them only to fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer two months' imprisonment. He did not interfere in the order of confiscation of the goods. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that any goods including 47 quintals 6u Kg grounds nuts and 88 quintals mustard were recovered from the godown of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the place from where the said goods were recovered was the residential house of the accused petitioners and not a godown. Both the courts have considered this argument and on the appraisal of evidence have come to the conclusion that the place where the goods were found was not the residential house. That .apart, even otherwise, there is sufficient material to reach to the conclusion. The first day it was found that the godown was locked and, the accused petitioner was not available and the next day the stock of the petitioner was verified and the above quantity of the goods were found. Thus, there can be no dispute that it,was in the godown of the accused-petitioners that the above goods were found, and no price list of the goods was displayed even at the shop of the accused petitioners. The question is whether it was necessary under Law. Thus, there can be no dispute that it,was in the godown of the accused-petitioners that the above goods were found, and no price list of the goods was displayed even at the shop of the accused petitioners. The question is whether it was necessary under Law. for the petitioners to have displayed the price list at the outer-door of the godown not?. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under clause (3) of the order what was required of the petitioner was to display the price list on the outer door of the business premises and it was not required to display any such list on the outer-door of the godown or show the price list of the goods found in the godown even in his shop. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan, RCC 1979 Vol. 4 page 96. In the aforesaid case such view was taken. The court said that the 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. The learned Judge placed reliance on the case of Dilip Pipaa v. State of West Bengal, 1977 Cr LJ 1653 with due respect to the learned Judge, rule 3 of the Order in West Bengal was not analogous to clause(3) of the Order. Rule 3 in that case which came up for consideration while dealing with the case of Dilip Pipara (supra) reads as under:- "Rule 3 of the order makes it incumbent on the part of a dealer of essential commodities to display prominently in a shop or show room a list indicating inter alia, the opening stock of such commodities and the retail selling price thereof every day". While constructing the above clause the court in the aforesaid case said that the godowns where the goods were found cannot be said to be the shop or show-room. In my opinion, the court is required to construe the clause of the order or any other clause of any order made by any State Government. While constructing the above clause the court in the aforesaid case said that the godowns where the goods were found cannot be said to be the shop or show-room. In my opinion, the court is required to construe the clause of the order or any other clause of any order made by any State Government. Clause (3) of the order as it stood at the relevant time reads as under:- Display of list of prices:-Not later than fifteen from the commencement of this order every dealer shall during the hours of his business display conspicuously in form A a list of prices of article he deals in at a place as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible. A bare reading of clause 3 will leave no manner of doubt that the dealer is required to display in form 'A' a list of prices and stock of all the articles 1-e deals There can he no dispute that the petitioner also dealt with in the mustard seeds and ground-nuts. There is no dispute that the price list should Lase been displayed in form 'A' near the entrance of the business premises of the accused petitioner. The courts below on the basis of the entries in the account books have come to conclusion that the petitioners used to deal in those articles. If a view is taken that a dealer is only required to display the only list of prices of such of the articles which are kept in his shop, then in my opinion this will make redundant the provision of the order. That apart, in my opinion, even the godowns will be the business premises within the meaning of clause 3 of the order because a dealer is not expected to store everything in his cope and is required to store them in his godowns. Rule 3 which came up for consideration in the case of Dilip Pipara (Supra) was worded differently and the words display prominently in a shop or showroom were there. In the present case the words used are 'business premises' and to my mind it makes all the difference. A look at form A in which the dealer is required to display the price will show that a dealer is required to mention in the said form A I quantity as well as price of the articles. In the present case the words used are 'business premises' and to my mind it makes all the difference. A look at form A in which the dealer is required to display the price will show that a dealer is required to mention in the said form A I quantity as well as price of the articles. Thus, I am of the opinion that for I the purposes of clause (3) of the Order, under the term 'business premises' will be included even the godowns A dealer who deals in any of the goods whose price list is required to be exhibited, must show the price list of those goods even if they are in the godowns. Thus, I am of the opinion, the petitioner were rightly convicted for contravention of clause (8) of the order. The case relates to the year 1975 i.e. after 1974 when sub-section (1)(b) was introduced by amendment in Section 7 of the Act. Under the aforesaid provision it has been provided that any property in respect of which any order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government. 4. There is no force in this revision and therefore, it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******