Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri N.K. Prasad, Special Judge, Bhagalpur in GR Case No. 569 of 1987. The sole appellant was convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 18th May, 1987, at 5.00 p.m., the Informant, Assistant Supply Officer, Banka inspected two godowns of the appellant on confidential information. The godowns were got opened by Shambhu Choudhary and on physical verification, several stocks of wheat, gram, mustard oil, rice, Maize and soap items were found in godowns of the appellant who could not produce any paper regarding possession of those commodities. The Display of price was also not made. 3. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced in the court, held the accused-appellant guilty and convic- ted and sentenced him. as stated above. 4. The appellants lawyer submitted that on the date when the inspection was made, the godown was kept closed and, admittedly, it was got opened by Shambhu Choudhary who was not prosecuted. Shambhu Choudhary is the brother of the appellant. Moreover, it was further submitted that the trial Court held that the appellant was entitled to acquittal for allegation of carrying on trade, without licence and for keeping stock of the alleged commodities but the storage limit fixed by the Unification Order, 1984 was not violated. However, the appellant was convicted for violation of Display of Price and Stock Order, 1977, because he failed to display the price index and stocks of the commodities. 5. In this connection, it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that when the shop in question was closed, there was no question of display of price etc. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed for violation of the Display Order was bad. On perusal of the lower Courts judgment also, it is apparent that the trial Court based the conviction of the appellant for violation of the Display Order but since, admittedly, the godowns which were subjected to inspection were not open and no business was being transacted, there was no question of display of price and stock. So, admittedly, the fact is that the conviction of the appellant was bad and not sustainable. 6. So, admittedly, the fact is that the conviction of the appellant was bad and not sustainable. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted.