JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The Petitioner in the present revision application assails the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Champua u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. 2. The Petitioner stood charged u/s 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') on the ground that he did not fix the stock and the price chart as required under Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'). The prosecution case in short is that on 31-7-1977 at about 6 p.m., the Inspector of Supplies (P.W. 1) inspected the shop of the Petitioner at Bansapani and found that he had not affixed the stock and price chart of essential commodities and thereby he had contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order. The commodities were seized and were kept in custody of the Petitioner and thereafter prosecution report was submitted. 3. The defence plea was one of complete denial. 4. Prosecution examined the Inspector of Supplies in support of its case and the Petitioner examined one witness in support of his case that there was no contravention. The Inspector of Supplies was the complainant himself who admitted that there were two other persons present at the time of the alleged inspection. According to him, Petitioner did not display the board and therefore had contravened the provisions as aforesaid. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge-cum- J. M. F. C., Champua, on consideration of the evidence, came to hold that the guilt of the Petitioner was established and therefore, he convicted him u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced to undergo. R. I. for three months. Being aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar who upheld the conviction and the sentence on the ground that even though there were two persons available who could have been examined, their non-examination is not material and in any event does not vitiate the judgment of the Court below.. He did not accept the plea of the Petitioner that there was no contravention of the Order and/or in any event there was a price board fixed outside the shop room which p. w. 1 did not notice. 6. He did not accept the plea of the Petitioner that there was no contravention of the Order and/or in any event there was a price board fixed outside the shop room which p. w. 1 did not notice. 6. Mr. M.K.C. Rao, learned Counsel appearing far the Petitioner, submitted that neither the prosecution reported nor the evidence of the sale witness for the prosecution throws any light of any transaction being carried an to attract the provisions of the Order or the Act. He referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Manipur Administration Vs. M. Nila Chandra Singh wherein it was held that there must be specific material and/or finding that a person accused was carrying an business and such business was of specified quantities and that a single transaction would not be sufficient to came to a conclusion that a person was carrying an business. He further submitted that there was no evidence to shaw that the Petitioner was carrying an business of selling essential commodities. According to him, this aspect has been lost sight of by the Courts below. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of a solitary witness was sufficient for the purpose of conviction if his, evidence was unimpeached and there was material to show that the contravention as alleged had existed. He, however, fairly submitted that neither the prosecution report nor the evidence of p. w. 1 throws any light of any business activity being carried on by the Petitioner. 7. It would he useful to refer to Clause 2(a) of the Order;)which reads as follows: 2(a) 'dealer' means any person carrying on business of selling any essential commodity and includes a producer, wholesaler, or retailer. (Emphasis supplied by me) Therefore, in order to attract any lability under the Order it has to be established that the person was carrying on business of selling an essential commodity and was thus a dealer under the Order. In the instant case, there was no evidence led to show that there was any sale effected and/or that the Petitioner was carrying on, business of selling any essential commodity. In the instant case, there was no evidence led to show that there was any sale effected and/or that the Petitioner was carrying on, business of selling any essential commodity. The definition of 'dealer' as has been stated above postulates three ingredients, i. e., (i) a person must be carrying on business, (ii) he must be carrying on business of selling; and (iii) the sale must be of an essential commodity. Clause 3 of the Order requires that every dealer of essential commodities shall display the stock position as well as the prices in respect of the commodities. 'Business' has not been defined in either the Act or the Order. Even without a definition, the expression 'business' in its normal concept and fundamental idea means a continuous exercise of an activity. It connotes some real, substantial and systematic or organised course of activity or conduct set with a purpose. See AIR 1932 138 (Privy Council) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills Vs. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax. Ordinarily, there must exist the characteristics of volume frequency, continuity and system indicating an intention to continue the activity of carrying on the transactions, See Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Board of Revenue4. The apex Court had also held that even without a definition, the word 'business' has, (1) a generic meaning which is the primary meaning of right or occasion of making oneself busy, that which busies or occupies the time, attention or labour of one as his principal concern, regardless of any idea for gain or profit and, (2) a narrower or restricted meaning which is the commercial, legal or trade meaning of occupation for livelihood or profit such as a commercial or industrial establishment or enterprise. The expression 'carrying on business' therefore implies that there must be some real, substantial and systematic or organised course of activity or conduct and there must exist the characteristics of volume, frequency, continuity and system indicating tin intention to continue the same. It may be true that no single test or group of tests is decisive of the intention of carrying on business. It has, therefore, to be decided in the circumstances of each case as to whether an inference can be raised that a person is carrying on business of selling of goods. See Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Board of Revenue (1967) 20 S.T.R. 398 (S.C.). It has, therefore, to be decided in the circumstances of each case as to whether an inference can be raised that a person is carrying on business of selling of goods. See Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Board of Revenue (1967) 20 S.T.R. 398 (S.C.). "Carrying on business" can only exist when there is succession of acts or continuity of transactions. The expression will, thus, mean active trade continuously carried on. 8. There being no evidence led to show that the Petitioner was carrying on any business, that too of sale of an essential commodity, the question of contravention of any provision of the Order does not stand to reason. The evidence of p. w. 1 and also the prosecution report are squarely silent on this material aspect. Therefore, on the ground that the evidence was deficient and in the present case does not throw any light of any business activity of sale of essential commodity being, carried on the conviction cannot be sustained. The, 'prosecution has squarely failed to establish that there was any contravention of any provision of the Order, as alleged. 9. In the result, the revision succeeds and the orders of conviction and sentence' as passed by the trial court and upheld by, the appellate court are set aside. The bail bond executed be cancelled. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge as aforementioned. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed