JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the offences under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act'). 2. On 26.4.1995, PW 11 Bhanwar Singh Charan, District Supply Officer, PW 8 Ratanpuri Goswami, Enforcement Inspector and PW 7 Prakant Tyagi inspected the shop M/s. Sohan Lal Jain. Sohan Lal Jain was present at the time of inspection of the shop. It was disclosed that firm had obtained licence of cereal trading, but it was submitted for renewal. During inspection it was found that the entries on the price and stock exhibition board were not readable. It was further found that on 25.4.85 the firm had purchased gram weighing 10 quintals and 31 Kgs. but the same was not entered in the stock register. Having found violation of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980, the District Supply Officer confiscated the gram weighing 10 quintals and 31 Kgs. and handed it over in Supurdagi to PW 9 Babu Khan. Sohan Lal accepted in writing that it was by mistake that he could not enter the gram in the stock register. The District Supply Officer then prepared inspection report Ex.P 6. On 8.1.1986, PW 7 Prakant Tyagi, Enforcement Inspector submitted a written report Ex.P 11 at Police Station Sarwad, whereupon, the police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused respondents. 3. Learned trial court framed charge against the accused respondents. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 11 witnesses. After the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. In his explanation, accused Sohan lal admitted that 10 bags (Bori) of gram was available on 26.4.85 when the District Supply Officer inspected the shop. He explained that trading was settled on 25.4.85 and the goods came to be received on 26.4.85. Since he remained busy to look after his ailing elder bother Ugra Singh and, therefore, he could not enter the goods in the stock register. He further explained that entries on the price board were readable. 5. He explained that trading was settled on 25.4.85 and the goods came to be received on 26.4.85. Since he remained busy to look after his ailing elder bother Ugra Singh and, therefore, he could not enter the goods in the stock register. He further explained that entries on the price board were readable. 5. At the conclusion of trial and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove charge against the accused respondent and accordingly, acquitted the accused respondent of the offence charged with. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 7. At the very out set, it would be appropriate to refer Condition No. 3(d) of the Licence issued under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980, which reads as under: "(d) The licence shall complete the entries in the stock register for each day latest by the beginning of the transaction on the following day, unless prevented by reasonable cause, the burden of proving which shall lie upon him." 8. From a bare perusal of the above condition it is evident that the respondents licensee were required to complete the entries of the goods received by them on 25.4.1985 in the stock register latest by the beginning of the transaction on the following day i.e. on 26.4.1985. However, the respondents could not complete the entries of the goods received, in the stock register, for which accused respondent Sohan Lal had offered written explanation (Ex.P 5) even prior to the start of inspection of the shop. This -document has been produced in evidence on behalf of the prosecution itself. In this explanation, accused Sohan Lal has very specifically stated that he had gone to Ajmer to attend his ailing elder brother. It appears from the record that the Collector, Ajmer vide order dated 30.9.1986, having found the above explanation as just and proper has ordered that confiscated Gram be returned to the accused respondent. Undisputedly, respondent Sohan Lal alone was present at the shop at the time of inspection. It appears from the record that the Collector, Ajmer vide order dated 30.9.1986, having found the above explanation as just and proper has ordered that confiscated Gram be returned to the accused respondent. Undisputedly, respondent Sohan Lal alone was present at the shop at the time of inspection. Another accused respondent Gyan Chandra in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has explained that on the day of inspection he was not present at the shop and he was elsewhere, which in my view appears to be reasonable. 9. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence so as to establish that accused respondent intentionally did not enter the Gram in the stock register or that he had any intention of black marketing. The learned trial court, on consideration of evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that since accused respondent had gone to attend his ailing brother at Ajmer, therefore, he could not enter the Gram in the stock register. Accused Sohan Lal alone was present at the shop at the time of inspection and he had submitted his explanation in writing to the inspecting team, for not entering the Gram in the stock register. Similar was the explanation of the accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. In these circumstances, the instant case falls within the purview of Condition No. 3(d) of the Licence issued under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, according to which the licensee could have completed the entries in the stock register by the beginning of the next day unless prevented by reasonable cause. The accused respondent, as stated above, was prevented by reasonable cause inasmuch as he had gone to Ajmer to attend his elder brother who was sick and that being so, he could enter the Gram in the stock register. The cause shown for not completing the stock register has been rightly accepted to be just and proper. 10. So far as display of price list on the Board is concerned, the learned trial court on consideration of evidence, in particular the statement of PW 9 Babu Khan and the statement of District Supply Officer has come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish whether the board containing price list was exhibited according to rules or not. I have gone through prosecution evidence and in my considered view, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court being based on proper appreciation, does not call for any interference. 11. It also need be observed that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. It is well settled that even if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. I find support from the law propounded by the Apex Court in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 1 SCC 136. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******