G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been convicted under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, by not displaying the list of stocks of essential commodities and retail prices thereof for having violated Condition No. 3 of the licence issued under the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, by not maintaining the daily account of sugar properly and for having violated Clause 3 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order, 1966, by storing baby food in his shop without a licence and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar. The co-accused who also stood charged along with the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not violated the provisions of Clause 7 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order and, therefore, his conviction on that score could not be sustained. But he confirmed the conviction on other two counts and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of rupees five hundred, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months. It is this modified order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge which is being impugned in the present revision. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, petitioner, Bhagaban is a licenced dealer authorised to deal with several controlled commodities. On 17-4-1980, the Inspector of Supplies, the -Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police Keonjhar, inspected the shop premises of the petitioner. They found that though the shop was open, yet there had been no board indicating the opening stock and retail selling prices of essential commodities, as required under the-provisions of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. They further found that the petitioner had kept two numbers of Amul Spray in the shop for sale though he had no licence under the Orissa Bahy Food Licensing Control Order, 1966. They further found that the petitioner had kept two numbers of Amul Spray in the shop for sale though he had no licence under the Orissa Bahy Food Licensing Control Order, 1966. The Supply Inspector verified the sugar stock register and found that the actual stock of sugar was less than the stock shown in the register. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, prosecution report was filed against the petitioner for violation of the provisions as already stated. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner was that the stock of essential commodities as well as the retail price had been indicated in a slate. It was his further plea that the Amul Spray was not meant for sale but had been kept for his personal use and so far as the sugar was concerned, it was his plea that the stock had been duly maintained. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 3 witnesses and the defence also examined 2 witnesses. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that there had been no display of the stock position as well as the retail price and there had been variation between the stock position of sugar actually in possession and the stock position maintained in the register and further the Amul Spray was kept for sale. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate hold the petitioner guilty on all the three counts. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge having acquitted the petitioner of the charge on the basis of violation of the provision of Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, but affirming the conviction on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order as well as the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order, I am concerned in the present case with the said two Orders. ( 5 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the relevant date, there was no notification notifying Amul Spray as a Baby Food and, therefore, there is no violation as alleged even if it is found that the two tins of Amul Spray in the shop were meant for sale. ( 5 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the relevant date, there was no notification notifying Amul Spray as a Baby Food and, therefore, there is no violation as alleged even if it is found that the two tins of Amul Spray in the shop were meant for sale. Under the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order, no person can carrying business as a dealer in respect of any baby rood except under and in accordance with the arms and conditions of a valid license granted n that behalf by the licensing authority, under clause 5 of the Order. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have any valid licence. Baby Food has been defined in Clause 2 (i) to mean, (a food as specified in Schedule-ITT. According to Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Amul Spray was not one of the items in Schedule-I. In support of this contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the Gazette notification dated 30th of April, 1980, notifying the Government Notification No. SRO 466 (80 dated 19. 4. 1980 by which notification Amul Spray was notified to be a Baby Food. Thus according to Mr. Mohanty prior to 19. 4. 80, namely the date of issuance of Notification No. SRO 466/80, Amul Spray had not been notified to be a Baby Food and in the present case, the date on which the petitioners shop premises was inspected is 17. 4. I 980 and, therefore, on that date Amul Spray had not been notified to be a Baby Food. The learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to assail the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner except saying that such a contention had not been raised in the two courts below. But this being a pure question of law even the revisional court can permit the petitioner to raise such a question. Thus, if Amul Spray was not a Baby Food on 17. 4. 1980, the date on which it was found to be in the shop premisses of the petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for violation of the provisions contained in the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order cannot be sustained. Thus, if Amul Spray was not a Baby Food on 17. 4. 1980, the date on which it was found to be in the shop premisses of the petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for violation of the provisions contained in the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order cannot be sustained. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it must be held that there has been no violation of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be convicted there under. The conclusion of the learned trying Magistrate as well as of. the learned Sessions Judge on that score must be set aside. ( 6 ) THE only other question that remains for consideration is whether there has been a violation of the provisions contained in the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essantial Commodities Order. 1973. The three prosecution witnesses who have been examined in this case have stated that the accused had not displayed the stocks of essential commodities though: the defence has given a defence witness through D. W. 2 who had stated that the stock position and the prices had been mentioned in a state. But that has not been accepted by the courts of fact and it would not be appropriate for the revisional court to enter into the evidence and to scrutinise the same. Under Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, a dealer of essential commodity is bound to display prominently in the shop a list indicating the opening stock of such commodity and the retail selling price thereof each day. On the date in question, the petitioners shop was open and in view of the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accused petitioner had not displayed the opening stock of essential commodities in his possession and the retail selling prices thereof, as required under Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, and, therefore, the conclusion of the two courts below that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the said Order remains unassailable. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then contends that since the petitioner is a dealer in a remote village and is not very cognisant with the requirements of law and has not committed and offence knowingly and this is for the first time wherein he has been found to have violated the provision in question, it is a fit case where he should be dealt with under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trying Magistrate considered the provisions of section 360 but held that the accused did not deserve to be dealt with under section 360 since there had been a shortage in the stock of sugar which is a commodity of greater demand. The learned Sessions Judge, however, has not considered the provisions of section 360. The accused having been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for violation of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Control Order as well as the Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order and having been convicted only for having violated the provisions of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, particularly in a remote village and there being no previous conviction proved against the petitioner, having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the petitioner and to the circumstances in which the offence in question was committed. I am of the view that it would be expedient to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct and, therefore, for the conviction in question, instend of sentencing him atonce to any punishment, I would direct that the petitioner be released on his entering into a bond for a sum of rupees one thousand with one surety for the like amount for a period of one year to appear and receive sentence in question when called upon during such period as the court may direct and during this period, the petitioner shall not indulge in similar activity. The bond, as aforesaid, must be executed within a period of one month from today before the learned trying Magistrate failing which the petitioner must serve the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. .