ORDER Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for violation of the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Display Order') , 2. According to the prosecution case the petitioners were dealing in cattle fodder and on inspection three irregularities have been found by the concerned authority viz, (a) the petitioners had displayed the price of the article in question by putting a price placard, where the article was kept for sale but weight of the bag was not mentioned on the placard; (b) the petitioners were selling the cattle fodder at different prices varying between Rs, 138/- to Rs. 145/- whereas they were required to sell at the price of Rs. 137.50 paise fixed by the manufacturer and (c) in the cash memo counter foils weight of the bag sold was not mentioned. 3. So far the first allegation is concerned, in my view the same does not constitute violation of any order issued under Section 3 of the Act, much less Clause 3 (b) of the Display Order, according to which a dealer was required to display the price of every article mentioned in Schedule-II by affixing a price label or a price tag or by putting a price placard where the article is stored or kept for sale, unless the price of the article is already printed on the article itself, or its container, or packet or wrapper. For better appreciation it will be necessary to refer to Clause-3 of the Display Order, which is quoted hereunder: "3. Display of stock and price:- Every, dealer shall before commencement of his business on any day display at a conspicuous place near the entrance of his business premises the following: (a) A list of price and stocks of all those articles mentioned in Schedule in which he deals. (b) The price of every such article mentioned in Schedule-II in which he deals in by affixing a price label or a price tag to each article, or by putting a price placard where the article is stored or kept for sale, unless the price of the article is already printed on the article itself, or its container, or packet or wrapper. (c) List of prices of any article, mentioned in Schedule II as may be specified from time to time by the Commissioners or the District Magistrates as the case may be." 4. From a bare perusal of Clause 3 (b) referred to above it would appear that with regard to Schedule II, articles a dealer is required to display only its price and he is not required to display either weight of bag or even the stock of the article. So far the articles mentioned in Schedule – I of the Display Order is concerned under Clause 3 (a) of the Display Order a dealer is required to display price and stock both. Question arises whether on the basis of Clauses 3 (c) it can be said that a dealer is required to display the stock of Schedule II commodity and weight of each bag. According to Clause 3 (c) a dealer is required to display the list of article mentioned in Schedule II as may be specified from time to time by the Commissioners or the District Magistrates as the case may be. The expression" list of prices" has been defined under Clause 2 (e) of the Display which reads thus: Order "2 (e)-" List of prices" means the list maintained from time to time by a dealer in Form “A” of Schedule-III to this Order indicating the sale price and stock of these articles specified in Schedule - I in which the dealer carries on business." According to clause 2 (e) list of prices means the list indicating the sale price and stock of Schedule-I articles. In Clause 3 (a) the expression used is list of prices but in Sub clause (b) of Clause 3 the expression used is only price. It is not necessary for me in the present case to record a concluded opinion on the question as to whether the expression "list of prices" means list indicating the sale price and stock: of' the article. This question may be considered fully and decided in an appropriate case. It is not necessary for me in the present case to record a concluded opinion on the question as to whether the expression "list of prices" means list indicating the sale price and stock: of' the article. This question may be considered fully and decided in an appropriate case. The petitioners can not be brought within the purview of Clause 3 (c) for the simple reason that there is no allegation that the Commissioner or the District Magistrate within the meaning of Clause 2 (f) and (g) respectively of the Display Order have specified any list of prices in relation to cattle fodder, therefore, the petitioners, can not be said to have contravened Clause 3 (c) of the Display Order. 5. In relation to the second allegation that the petitioners were found selling cattle fodder at a price which was in excess of the same fixed by the manufacturer is concerned, I am of the view that this allegation does not disclose any offence, as a person can not be held liable under Section 7 of the Act, unless price is fixed in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act. In the case in hand it has been categorically stated that no price at all has been fixed in relation to cattie fodder either by the Central Government or by the State Government or by any other competent person. If a retail price is fixed by a manufacturer and if a person is found selling in excess of that price the same does not disclose any offence unless it is shown that the manufacturer has fixed the price in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 3 of the Act 6. Undisputedly there is no Licensing Order upon cattle fodder. So for the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification') is concerned the same shall have no application to the case in hand, as cattle fodder has not been mentioned in its Schedule. Under the Unification Order it may well be argued that if a price is fixed by the manufacturer and if any person is found selling in excess of that he has contravened its provisions. It is not necessary to record any concluded opinion on this issue as the article in question does not come within the purview of Unification Order. 7. It is not necessary to record any concluded opinion on this issue as the article in question does not come within the purview of Unification Order. 7. This takes me to the third allegation, namely non-mentioning of weight of bag in the cash memo counterfoil. Under the Unification Order a dealer is required to mention the weight of the article in the cash memo but the same is not applicable to cattle fodder. The requirement of issuance of cash memo in the Display Order has been enumerated in Clause 4 (c), which reads thus :- 4. Sale of articles. No dealer shall – (c) "Sell any article or articles to any person without issuing a cash memo or a bill provided that the total value of such sale is above rupees ten or the value of one of the item included in it is above rupees five. " According to Clause 4 (c) a person is required to issue cash memo for sale of the article if the value of the same exceeds a particular limit. It has no where been mentioned in Clause 4(c) as to what details are required to be furnished in the cash memo. No form has been prescribed under the Display Order for issuing cash memo, therefore, if a dealer has mentioned only the number of bag and the price at which it has sold, in my view, the same meet the requirement of law and the dealer can not be said to have contravened any provision of either the Display Order or any other order issued under Section 3 of the Act. 8. For the foregoing reasons I am clearly of the view that the allegations disclosed in the first information report even if the same are taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, so contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act, is made out and consequently the petitioners can not be prosecuted under section 7 of the Act, as such prosecution of the petitioners is fit to be quashed as continuance thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and prosecution of the petitioners is hereby quashed. Application allowed.