JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision by Shri Girdhari Lal Malhotra, General Manager of the Diwan Sugar Mills, Sakoti Tanda, Tehsil Sardhana, district Meerut, who has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under rule 25 of the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Rules, made under the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Sardhana, and whose appeal against the conviction and sentence has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. 2. Rule 19 sub-rule (12) of the Rule aforesaid . enjoins an occupier or manager of a sugar factory to.- (i) provide metalled approaches to and exits from all weigh-bridges at the factory premises to such distance as may in each case be reasonable and feasible, and up to a distance of one furlong, when required to do so by the Cane Commissioner ; (ii) keep the same in a proper state of repair ; (iii) provide reasonable space for parking of carts waiting their turn for approach to the weigh-bridges; and (iv) provide sheds and cattle troughs at the factory gates to the satisfaction of the Cane Commissioner. 3. The complaint of the Additional District Magistrate of Meerut against the applicant was that he had failed to keep the approach road to the weigh-bridge in proper state of repairs and it was full of pits and uneven in character and that the parking yard was divided by digging pits and trenches, which were dangerous to the safety of the carts and animals This complaint was based on the inspection note of the Government Sugar-Cane Inspector, who had visited the factory on February 6, 1949. 4. The Court below has founds that the approach road to the weigh-bridge was not in proper state of repairs and that the parking yard was divided by digging pits and trenches, which were dangerous to the safety of the carts and animals. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant had got the road leading to the weigh-bridge re-metalled in November 1948, and that on account of the crushing season the road was not in proper condition when the Inspector visited the factory in February 1949. Under the rule, which has been quoted above, the applicant was, however, required to keep the road in proper state of repair. Under the rule, which has been quoted above, the applicant was, however, required to keep the road in proper state of repair. If on account of rush of carts during the crushing season the road had gone into the condition in which it was found by the Inspector, it was the duty of the applicant to have it repaired from' time to time. 6. The next argument put forward on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant had provided space for parking of carts and had also made a road leading up to that space) and the mere fact that there existed pits and ditches on either side of the road would not amount to contravention of the provisions of clause (iii) sub* rule 12 of rule 19. The courts below have, however, found that the parking ground itself was divided by digging pite and trenches which were dangerous to the safety of the carts and animals, It was not sufficient for the applicant to provide some space ; but he should have provide reasonable space for parking of the carts in proper condition. 7. Consequently, the courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the applicant had contravened the provisions of clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule 2(1) of rule 19 of the Rules mentioned above. 8. Lastly, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that for two offences only one sentence was imposed upon the applicant which was illegal; and, in any case, the sentence was excessive. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has, however urged that in fact there was only one offence, namely, the contravention of the provisions contained in sub-rule (12) of rule 19 of the Rules referred to above. 9. Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Sugar Factories Control Act l938, provides:- (1) Any person contravening any of the provisions of these rules for which no penalty has been provided in the Act...shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 750/-. 10. Sub-rule 12 of rule 19 of the same Rules, as has already been pointed out above, requires an occupier or manager of a sugar factory to do certain things, and if he fails to comply with the requirements of the sub-rule, he renders him-self . liable to the punishment provided for in rule 25. 750/-. 10. Sub-rule 12 of rule 19 of the same Rules, as has already been pointed out above, requires an occupier or manager of a sugar factory to do certain things, and if he fails to comply with the requirements of the sub-rule, he renders him-self . liable to the punishment provided for in rule 25. So in the present case there was really one offence inasmuch as the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of Sub-rule (12) of rule aforesaid. The trial court was, therefore, justified in awarding one sentence. 11. As regards the punishment, learned for counsel the applicant has pointed out that this was the first offence which the applicant had committed, and in view of the fact that the road had been reinstalled a few months before the visit of the Sugarcane Inspector the fine imposed upon the applicant is excessive. I find there is some force in this contention I think in the circumstances of the case a fine of Rs. 250/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I reduce the fine imposed Upon, the applicant from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 250/-, and the period of simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine from two months to one month. With his modification in the sentence, the revision is rejected.