- (1.) These four appeals arise out of four prosecutions which were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th court, Mazgaon, Bombay. The facts. leading to the prosecution are not in all respects identical in the four cases but it is obvious from the judgments under consideration that the cases were heard and disposed of on the basis that the variation in the facts would not make difference to the result. The four respondents in these appeals are shopkeepers in Bombay - some run grocery shops while some deal only in oils of different varieties. The charge against the respondents is that they failed to display prices of 'vanaspati' which they were selling in their shops in tinned and loose form.
(2.) S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 10 of 1955, empowers the central government, by order, to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution or trade and commerce in any essential commodity for the purposes mentioned in Ss. (1) thereof. Ss. (2) of S. 3 specifies various matters in regard to which the central government may pass orders contemplated by Ss. (1). The power conferred by S. 3 was delegated by the central government to the State governments in pursuance of the provision contained in S. 5. S. 7 provides for punishment for contravention of an order made under S. 3.
(3.) In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 read with S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the government of Maharashtra issued the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966. Clause 3 (a) of that order provides that every dealer shall, in respect of the articles specified in Schedule 1, display a list of prices in the form prescribed in that schedule. We are concerned with items 15 and 16 of the Schedule which read : " 15. Vanaspati, Tinned" and "16. Vanaspati, Loose".;