JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. This is an application u/s 378, Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Vigilance G.R. Case No. 18 of 1996 (22 T/96). 3. Admittedly the present opposite party as accused faced trial for commission of offence under Sections 7/9 of Essential Commodities Act for having contravened Clauses 6 and 12 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. Clauses 3 and 6-A of Orissa Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, Clause 3 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 and Clauses 3, 6 of the Orissa Wheat Product Control Order, 1988 and Clause 3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 for having not properly exhibited stock and store position. 4. It appears that the Vigilance Department along with the staff of Civil Supplies Department conducted a raid on the godown of the accused at Rajnagar, verified the stock register and found shortage of rice, sugar, wheat and kerosene. They also found that though there was a Board but then the correct position was not displayed. The accused denied all the charges. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case got examined six witnesses and exhibited twelve documents. The defence got examined three witnesses and exhibited two documents. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner was not a dealer but was a sub-wholesaler and he was not required to maintain the display board. It was further held that the Vigilance Department did not search the entire godown and as such it cannot be conclusively held that there was shortage of stock. On the basis of such conclusions the Court below held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt under the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted him. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department, submitted that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the accused was not required to maintain the display Board. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department, submitted that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the accused was not required to maintain the display Board. It is further submitted that the findings with regard to shortage of materials was also not correct in view of specific evidence adduced by the prosecution. 7. Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the Court below had discussed the evidence both oral and documentary in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. According to Mr. Sahoo, the accused being a sub-wholesaler he was not required to maintain the display Board. It is further submitted that the godown of the accused contains two rooms. The evidence clearly reveals that the Vigilance Department conducted the search of one room and never attempted to search the other room where stock was stored. It is further submitted that the search was conducted on the presence of a person who was in charge of the store but not on the presence of the authorized agent. 8. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 the two official witnesses. They belong to Civil Supplies Department. P.W. 4 stated in his deposition that out of two godowns only one godown was searched by the Vigilance Department. In order to establish the fact that there were two godowns the defence had exhibited Ext. A-the Sketch Map. P.W. 5 also corroborates the statement made by P.W. 4. The opposite party being a Sub-wholesaler, he is not required to maintain the display Board as has been held by this Court in the case of Gurucharan v. State of Orissa reported in 15 (1998) OCR 94; According to Mr. Mohapatra, in consonance with the amendment of the Act and Rules the Petitioner is required to maintain the display Board correctly reflecting the stock position. The Trial Court had dealt with all the provisions and had clearly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was only a sub-wholesaler so also storage agent as has been deposed by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and that there is no provision that a storage agent as a matter fact is either a dealer or a retailer and was required to maintain the display Board. 1, 2 and 4 and that there is no provision that a storage agent as a matter fact is either a dealer or a retailer and was required to maintain the display Board. Be that as it may there appears to be some confusion with regard to the position of law at the relevant time and as such the Petitioner deserves the benefit of doubt. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, after going through the order and after analyzing the materials I find that the conclusions arrived at is neither perverse nor unreasonable. The Court below has discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, and has arrived at a just conclusion. There is no ambiguity nor there was any error apparent on the face of the record. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the said relief to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed