P.C.BOROOAH, J. - (1.)ON July 7, 1975 a godown belonging to one Nandadulal Singha of Murarai Bazar Road, P. S. Murarai, District Birbhum, was searched in connection with Murarai P. S. Case No. 14 of 1975 Under Section 379 of the I. P. C. In course of search several tins of mustard oil and 22 wooden boxes containing electric bulbs of Pradip Lamp Works, Patna with illegible railway markings on the boxes were found inside the godown. On being questioned Nandadulal Singha could not produce any documents to prove his ownership of the goods found in the godown. On being questioned Nandadulal Singha could not produce any documents to prove his ownership of the goods found in the godown but in course of investigation the name of the petitioner Dilip Pipara transpired as the person who had stored the boxes containing the bulbs in the aforesaid godown. The police duly submitted a charge -sheet and the learned Magistrate by an order dated April 24, 1976 framed a charge against the petitioner and Nandadulal Singha Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Rule 3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'order'). Against tflie order framing the charge the petitioner has come up before this Court in revision.
(2.)THE submission made by Mr. Biren Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the charge should be quashed as the petitioner could not be said to have committed any violation of the order as he was not a dealer as denned in Rule 2(a) of the Order and even assuming he was a dealer there was no liability on his part to display any list in the godown.
Rule 3 of the Order makes it incumbent on the part of a dealer of essential commodities to display prominently in a shop or showroom a list indicating, inter alia, the opening stock of such commodities and the retail selling price thereof every day.

(3.)ADMITTEDLY , the place namely the godown of Nandadulal Singha, where the bulbs in question were found cannot be said to be a shop or a showroom. As such the petitioner was under no obligation to display a list in the said godown in accordance with Rule 3 of the Order. In this view of the matter the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be maintained. I therefore allow this application and quash the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate by his order dated April 24, 1976. The learned Magistrate will, however be at liberty to frame any other charge as permitted under the law. The Rule is thus disposed of. Let the records go down at once.