G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the appellate judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge (l), Alwar whereby he confirmed the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts found to have been proved by the lower courts, the Enforcement Inspector inspected the shop of the accused Rameshwar Dayal, Narain and Deshavdev on 30. 11. 1975. The name of the firm of the accused is M/s. Gordhandas Mahavir Prasad. It was found that the list exhibited in the shop was not in accordance with the Rajasthan Essential Commodities. (Display of Prices and Stock) Order of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order of 1975 ). This order has been promulgated under the powers conferred on the State Government by virtue of Rule 114 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter to be called as the Rules of 1971 ). The accused denied the charge. After the evidence was recorded, the trial Court found the facts of the charge proved. The only charge held to be proved against the accused is that he failed to mention in the price list exhibited the quantity of Stock. The trial Court while convicting the accused under the Order of 1975 read with rule 114 of the Rules of 1971 sentenced the accused to three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In addition to the above, the stock of 151 hags of Sarson was confiscated. In appeal, the sentence was reduced till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In this revision application, Mr. Pareek has raised an important question of law that the shops are not governed by rule 114 of the Rules of 1971, because it applies to industries only. It was then argued that because there is no provision under rule 116 for regulating the exhibition of the price and stocks analogous to rule 114, therefore the shops are not governed by the Order of 1975. However, on a plain reading of rule 114, it is clear that it applies to trade business also and not to industries exclusively. It would be clear that trade or business have been used as additional class exclusive of the industry and not inclusive of the industry, as sought to be read by Mr. Pareek. I am, therefore, convinced that rule 114 applies to shops also and not to industries only. An effort was made by Mr. Pareek to take me through the facts of the case, but in view of the limited jurisdiction of revision, I am not inclined to interfere by re-appreciation of evidence.
(3.) LASTLY, it was argued that the date on which the inspection was made was a Sunday, and the stock registers of the accused were found to be complete as also the price list. The only omission was that because of the holiday, the exact stock of this particular item was not mentioned. The theory of holiday has not been believed by the lower court and correctly so, because the accused were actually functioning in the shop and doing the business. Therefore, on the basic question of correctness of conviction, I am convinced that no interference is called for. However, in all other respects the accused were acting in a regular manner by having a licence, keeping a register in a proper manner and maintaining a price list, but a slight lapse of non-mentioning of the stock on Sunday resulted in the conviction, is certainly a factor which can be taken into consideration for the purpose of punishment. The sentence awarded does not call for any interference but the consequential order of confiscation of goods deserves to be quashed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The result is that this revision application fails, so far as the question of conviction and sentence is concerned, but it succeeds partially to the extent that the order of confiscation of goods, i. e. , 151 bags of Sarson and Taramira; is set aside. . ;