Judgment P.K.Sarin, J. 1. This criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 28th June, 1938 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act), Patna in Special Case No. 8 of 1988 by which the learned Special Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It appears that a first information report (copy at Annexure-2) was filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Satva Gas Service, Gardani Bagh, Patna. It was alleged that on 7.4.1988 the business premises of the said firm was raided by the Assistant Rationing Officer along with other personnel. The petitioner was not present at the business premises at that time. It was found that notice board was not found according to the prescribed proforma (Schedule-III form-A) as it did not disclose the name of the Agency or the name of the Proprietor nor the information regarding the stock received and balance. It was further alleged that the price of refill of the gas was also not shown on the notice board. It was alleged that on account of such deficiency the petitioner has contravened the provisions of clauses (3) and (4) of the Bihar Essential Commodities (Price and Display) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Display Order). It was further alleged that the stock register and the issue register relating to the refil were not produced for inspection and thereby the provisions of condition No. 9 of the licence issued under Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has been contravened. It was further alleged that the physical verification was done regarding the stock of the refill in the godown and it was found that the stock of filled up cylinders, empty cylinders and defective cylinders, as shown on the notice Board, did not tally with the refills found in the godown. It was further found that the godown keeper, Kanchan Kumar, had told that seventy four cylinders had been sent through vendors to be supplied to the residence of the consumers. Taking into account that statement to be correct it was found that there was still defnciency of seventy cylinders which could not be explained and total four cylinders were found in excess of the stock shown. Taking into account that statement to be correct it was found that there was still defnciency of seventy cylinders which could not be explained and total four cylinders were found in excess of the stock shown. It was further alleged that at the time of inspection two consumers had complained that the refilled cylinders were to be supplied at the rate of Rs. 60.25 paise if it is delivered to the residence and if it is taken by the consumer from the godown it has to be supplied at two rupees less than the said rate but they had not been given that concession and they have been charged the price at the rate of Rs. 60.25 paise. On account of such fact it was alleged that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clauses 16 and 16 (II) of the Unification Order. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner and subsequently fixed the date for hearing on charge matter. Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance order this criminal revision application has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no storage limit has been fixed for liquefied petroleum gas (hereinafter referred to as the L.P.G.) under the Unification Order as such the Unification Order was not workable in respect of the L.P.G. and there arises no question of contravention of Clauses 16 and 16 (II) of the Unification Order or any other clause of the said Order. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 17.11.1974 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 367 of 1991 with Cr. Rev. No. 322 of 1991 Satish Agrawal and others v. State of Bihar. In the said case it has been held that in absence of fixation of storage limit under the Unification Order the same was not workable and enforceable in respect of L.P.G. and the cognizance order was set aside in the said case. Rev. No. 322 of 1991 Satish Agrawal and others v. State of Bihar. In the said case it has been held that in absence of fixation of storage limit under the Unification Order the same was not workable and enforceable in respect of L.P.G. and the cognizance order was set aside in the said case. It view of the decision of this court in the said decision of this court in the said case the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner of fixation of storage limit for L.P.G. the provisions of Unification Order could not be enforced against the dealer and it cannot be said that any clause of the Unification Order has been contravened by the dealer by storing L.F.G. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the concession of rupees two in the price of refilled gas cylinder on taking delivery from the godown had not been fixed under statutory order. It was merely concession granted to the consumers if they took delivery of the refilled gas cylinders from the godown as such not giving concession to any consumer on his taking gas cylinder from the godown would not amount to contravention of the provisions of the Unmcation Order or any other Order in that regard. This contention also appears to me carry force. Unless Order had been issued under any statutory order or rule it would be only an administrative order and its contravention cannot be said to be contravention of the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act. 6. As regards the contravention of the Display Order, 1977, learned counsel has pointed out that the stock was shown on the notice board as checking of the godown was done on the basis of the particulars of stock mentioned on the notice Board. The proviso to sub-clause (a) of Clause (3) of the Display Order lays down that the retailers shall have to display the prices of each article including taxes and they shall have to display on the Display Board writing the word yse or no in place of writing quantity of availability of stocks. It also shows that the quantity of stock was not to be displayed on the Display Board by retailer and only he had to write the word yes or no in respect of the stock on the Display Board. 7. It also shows that the quantity of stock was not to be displayed on the Display Board by retailer and only he had to write the word yes or no in respect of the stock on the Display Board. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the price of the refilled gas cylinder on delivery from godown was not shown on the Display Board and on that ground also the contravention of the Display Order, 1977, has been alleged. It is contended that the price of refilled gas cylinder was Rs. 60.25 paise and only rupees two were given as concession on taking delivery from the godown not under any order under the statutory rules and orders but under administrative order. Therefore, non-display of such concessional rate would not amount to contravention of the clauses (3) and (4) of the Display Order. As already observed, the concession of rupees two was given to the consumer on taking delivery of the refilled gas cylinder from the godown under administrative orders. That cannot be said to be the price fixed for the gas cylinder. If the price of Rs. 60.25 paise was displayed on the notice board for refilled gas cylinder that was sufficient compliance with the requirement of displaying the price of the gas cylinder. It cannot be said that on account of non-display of concessional rate of gas cylinder on the Display Board amounted to contravention of clauses (3) and (4) of the Display Order. 8. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not present at the time when the contravention is alleged to have been found. Therefore, there could not be any mens rea on his part in respect of the alleged contravention and he could not be prosecuted for such contravention. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of S. Poddar @ Satya Narain Poddar v. State of Bihar and others, 1995 (1) All Patna Law Reporter 426, wherein it has been held that mens rea is an essential ingredient for the contravention of any clause of any order under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Radhey Shyam Kalwalia v. State, 1968 PLJR 890, wherein also it has been held that mens rea is essential for prosecution for the offence under the Act. In the said case the accused was not present at the time of inspection of the business premises and it was held that no mens rea can possibly by attributed to the petitioner in respect of the alleged contravention of the Licensing Order of the terms and condition of the licence which was the basis of the prosecution of the accused. 9. In view of said decisions of this Court mens rea could not be attributed to the petitioner for the contravention of the Unification Order or the terms of the licence when he was not present at the time of alleged contravention. If any default had been done without his knowledge and thereby some contravention had taken place the petitioner could not have been attributed mens rea in absence of any cogent evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged contravention. In this view also the prosecution of the petitioner in absence of mens rea appears to be illegal. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be good ground to interfere with the impugned order as the offence punishable Under Section 7 of the Act does not appear to be made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the proceedings on the basis of impugned order are directed to be quashed.