JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Special Judge, Keonjhar u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (in short 'the Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (in short 'the Order') are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. The Appellant faced trial in respect of an allegation of improper maintenance of list required to be maintained under the Order, The ambit and intent of Clause 3 of the Order constitute the focal point of dispute in this appeal. Originally the entry stood as follows: 3. 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. There has been some changes in the provision which were brought about by S.R.O. No. 209/82 dated 9-2-1982, published in the Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary No. 377 dated 24-3-1982. After amendment the entry reads as follows: 3. Display of List - (1) Every retailer shall display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms, the stock position of each essential commodity in his possession by writing on a board the words 'available' or 'not available' as the case may be, against each such commodity 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 commodities. (2) Every dealer except a retailer shall display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms a list indicating the opening stock of such commodities in his possession and wholesale 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 by means of rubber stamp or by sticking a label on such commodity. Clause (3)(2) is relevant for our purpose. 3. According to the prosecution, on 29-5-1983 the functionaries of the Civil Supplies Department inspected the business premises of one Harihar Sahu and found that his son, the present Appellant, was present in the shop and was transacting the business. On verification it was found that 45 bags of edible common salt were kept for sale. But in the list indicating the stock position and the prices, a stock of 20 bags had been mentioned as the opening stock. Alleging improper maintenance of the list which was required to be maintained as per the Order, prosecution was launched. The stand of the Appellant was that though the opening stock of the day was 20 bags, subsequently during the course of the day 30 bags of salt had been purchased and there was also sale of 5 bags resulting in the available stock of 45 bags. According to the prosecution whenever there was any receipt of stock, that should have been reflected and mere indication of the stock, at the beginning of the day was not sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions. It is relevant to mention here that it has not been disbelieved that the Petitioner had received 30 bags of the commodity during the course of the day and/or that there was sale of 5 bags from the available stock. According to the tried Court the dealer was required to record the stock position as and when there was any receipt of stock and it was not sufficient if the stock available at the beginning of the day's transaction was recorded in the list maintained by it. According to it, the purpose of the Order was to bring to the notice of the customers the items of essential commodities available for sale, the stock of such commodity and the rate at which such commodity was sold. According to it, the purpose of the Order was to bring to the notice of the customers the items of essential commodities available for sale, the stock of such commodity and the rate at which such commodity was sold. It distinguished two decisions of this Court in the case of 1978 C.L.R. 87: State of Orissa Vs. P. Bainstaba Senapati with the observation that they were distinguishable on facts Having found the Appellant guilty, it convicted him u/s 7 of the Act, to contravention of Clause 3 of the Order and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months. 4. The respective stands have been reiterated at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. On consideration of the rival contentions the only point that falls for consideration is as to whether a dealer is required to display prominently a list indicating the opening stock of the essential commodities in his possession and the wholesale price thereof each day, or as required to make variations as an i when there is any addition or depletion in the stock. 'Dealer' is defined in Clause 2 which reads as follows: 2. Definitions. - In this order unless the context otherwise requires- (a) 'dealer' means any person carrying on business of selling any essential commodity, and includes a producer, importer, wholesaler or retailer. Originally the word 'wholesaler' was not there in the definition of dealer. The word 'wholesaler' in between the words 'importer' and 'or retailer' in Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2 has been inserted by S.R.O. No. 87/78 dated 27-1-1978, published in the Orissa 'Gazette, Extraordinary No. 136 dated 2-2-1979. Clause 3(1) casts an obligation on every retailer to display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms, the stock position of each essential commodity in his possession by writing on a board regarding the availability or otherwise of each such essential commodity and the retail selling prices thereof, each day. Clause 3(2) deals with every dealer except a retailer who is required to display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms a list indicating the opening stock of each essential commodity in his possession and the wholesale prices thereof, each day. Clause 3(2) deals with every dealer except a retailer who is required to display prominently in the business premises, shops or show rooms a list indicating the opening stock of each essential commodity in his possession and the wholesale prices thereof, each day. In other words a retailer is to indicate the availability or otherwise of the essential commodities whereas a dealer other than a retailer is to indicate the opening the stock of each essential commodity in his possession, each day. 'Dealer' as defined in the Order includes a retailer also. There seems to be a purpose in providing for two sets of contingencies in case of dealers who are retailers and those who are not. In the case of a retailer, the only requirement is an indication about the availability and non-availability. But in the case of a dealer, except a retailer, the opening stocks of the commodities in his possession has to be indicated so that the approximate quantum of availability is known. A retailer usually deals with smaller quantities which the rest of the categories included in the definition of dealer deal with larger quantities. According to the learned trial Judge opening stock of each day covers the entire period of the days transaction and since there is a variation in the stock position it has to be indicated in the stock. In, my view the interpretation put by him is erroneous. A bare reading of Clause 3(2), indicates that every dealer (except a retailer) is required to indicate the opening stock of essential commodities and the wholesale prices thereof, each day. The words 'opening stock' and 'each day' are significant. It means the stock. It the beginning of the day and cannot mean any other point of time. The stock position when the business is 'opened is to be indicated. When the business is closed, there is no question of and/or requirement of displaying the list. If the stock position at the beginning of the day's transaction is correctly reflected in the list displayed for the purpose, there is no contravention of Clause 3 of the Order. Otherwise it will be an unwieldy situation. A businessman cannot go on changing the list depending on the variations. There may be several receipts of stock and disposal therefrom. If the stock position at the beginning of the day's transaction is correctly reflected in the list displayed for the purpose, there is no contravention of Clause 3 of the Order. Otherwise it will be an unwieldy situation. A businessman cannot go on changing the list depending on the variations. There may be several receipts of stock and disposal therefrom. It would be an impractical requirement to insist on changes in the list as and when such addition or depletion from stock is occasioned. While dealing with the question as to whether there is requirement of change in the Board as and when sales are occasioned, this Court held in the case of P. Bainstaba Senapati (supra) that such a requirement is not provided for in the Order since a dealer in essential commodities within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Order (as it stood then) was required to indicate the opening stock of essential commodities and the retail selling prices thereof on each day, and that 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 my view the converse is also true. No obligation is cast to reflect addition in stock from time to time during the course of each day's business. In the case of State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu 53 (1982) CLT 13, it was held by this Court that after the shop is opened some time is required to make relevant entry in the board indicating the opening stock of the essential commodities and the selling prices thereof. In the said background it was held that since the supply staff arrived at the shop when it was just being opened, the accused did not get any time to make the relevant entries in the Board and there was no contravention of Clause 3 of Order. In essence it was held that stock position and the prices of the essential commodities at the beginning of the day's business have to be reflected. This Court held in the case of Narendra Kishore Chand v. State of Orissa 53 (1983) CLT 191 that it is not imperative to maintain stock list or display price list on a holiday when the shop remains closed. This Court held in the case of Narendra Kishore Chand v. State of Orissa 53 (1983) CLT 191 that it is not imperative to maintain stock list or display price list on a holiday when the shop remains closed. Thus, when there is stock in the possession of a dealer which has been correctly reflected in the list, he cannot be faulted if he has not made changes therein after receipt of fresh stock or disposal therefrom. But a question arises as to whether a dealer who has no stock at the time the business is opened for the day is required to make change in the list as soon as there is stock in his possession. In my view, a dealer is not required to do so, because the requirement is to display a list indicating the opening of the business to a particular day cannot be termed as the opening stock of essential commodities in question. It would be sufficient to indicate in the list that he has no stock in possession at the time of opening of the day's transaction. That would be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Clause 3(2), and it cannot be held that he had acted contrary to the requirement of Clause 3(2). It was held in the case of State of Orissa Vs. G. Seetaram Swamy, - that to bring the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order into effect it must be shown that the opening stock as indicated by the accused was not correct. Though expressed in a different context, the conclusion appears to me to be applicable to the facts of the present case also. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Appellant had correctly indicated the stock position at the beginning of the day. In that view of the matter he cannot be said to have made any contravention of Clause 3 of the Order to attract culpability u/s 7 of the Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Bail bond be discharged. Final Result : Allowed