Judgment Sinha, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Clause 3, Bihar Food grains Control Order, 1950, and has been sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for three and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 11,878-7-0, in default of the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year, and the foodgrains recovered from the shop of the appellant in excess of the prescribed maxim has also been forfeited to the Government. 2. The prosecution case is that on 22-6-1951, the grain-shop of the appellant in the town of Chapra was raided by the A. D. S. O., and other officers of the Rationing Department. When the shop was searched in presence of some persons of the neighbourhood, fifteen maunds 10 1/4 seers of China rice, 7 maunds 1 seer of red wheat and 6 maunds 6 seers of rice were recovered. All these articles of food were controlled ones, and the appellant had no licence for selling them. After the seizure of articles from the shop, a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted, and in response to the notice he showed cause by filing an application on 2-7-1951. After a consideration of the show-cause petition filed by the appellant and after a preliminary enquiry, the appellant was put on trial for having committed an offence for which he has been convicted. 3. The only defence taken by the appellant at the trial was that the shop did not belong to him. 4. A number of persons were examined in support of the prosecution case. One of them in P. W. 7, a clerk of the Chapra Municipality and who is employed also as a Market Sarkar, on the point that the shop was rented to the appellant by the Municipality. 5. Mr. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the Foodgrains Control Order, 1950, is ultra vires. It is said that the Bihar Food-grains Control Order has been made under Sec.3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Sec. 4 of that Act. 5. Mr. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the Foodgrains Control Order, 1950, is ultra vires. It is said that the Bihar Food-grains Control Order has been made under Sec.3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Sec. 4 of that Act. It is said that the intention of the Legislature in enacting Sec.3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act was not to touch petty dealers like the appellant, because, he says, small dealers like the appellant could not have been in contemplation of the Legislature when they enacted Sec.3, according to which "the Central Government, so far as it appears to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity, or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein." It is contended that in view of the provisions of this section, the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order 1950 which prohibits keeping, selling cr storing ten maunds or more of any foodgrains or all foodgrains taken together, could not have been made in furtherance of the intention deducible from the provisions of Sec.3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, that is to say keeping, selling or storing small quantities like ten maunds of foodgrains could not have affected the maintenance or supply of the essential commodity, nor could it have affected the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of the foodgrains. I must confess, I am unable to appreciate the point raised, The Food-grains Control Order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Sec.3 read with Sec. 4. Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, and in Sec.3 there is no limitation prescribed as to the maximum amount of food grains which one could keep, sell or store without a license. The State Government under the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act was, therefore, a free agent and entitled in law to fix the maximum quantity of foodgrams which a person might keep, sell or store without obtaining a licence. Clause 3 of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1950 , runs as follows: "No person shall (1) engage in wholesale transaction in. Clause 3 of the Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1950 , runs as follows: "No person shall (1) engage in wholesale transaction in. food-grains, or (b) keep, sell or store in any place or premises occupied by him or under his control or permit any other person to keep or store in any such place or premises, 10 maunds or more of any foodgrains, or all foodgrains taken together; (c) engage in milling paddy or wheat; except under and in accordance with a license in Form A, A (1) or A (2), as the case may be, issued in that behalf by the Licensing authority;........." 6. The intention was certainly to maintain the supply of foodgrains and for securing equitable distribution at fair prices, and it cannot be said that by enacting Clause 3, Bihar Foodgrains Control Order the State Government has gone beyond the powers given to it under Sec.3 read with Sec. 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. 7. It is then contended that the appellant is not the owner of the shop and that he was not in conscious possession of the articles found in the shop on the date the raid was made. There is no dispute that the articles mentioned above were found in the shop which the appellant had taken on rent from the Municipality. It is suggested in the argument here that he was not the person in charge of the shop and that the shop may have been taken on rent in his name. After the raid, the appellant was asked to show cause, which he did by an application dated 2-7-1951. Throughout the application the position taken by the appellant was that he was a poor and petty shop-keeper dealing in various kinds of grains on small scale. Not a word has been said anywhere in the petition, which consists of eight paragraphs, that he was not the shop-keeper and that he was not in possession of the articles in the shop but that his father or somebody else was in possession who dealt with the business of the shop. This is not the only thing to show that soon after the occurrence the petitioner himself had said that he was the. shop-keeper of the shop raided. This is not the only thing to show that soon after the occurrence the petitioner himself had said that he was the. shop-keeper of the shop raided. Sometime later, he made an application for the shop being made ever to him which had been locked and sealed by the A. D. S. O. on the date of the raid. The appellant appeared before the said officer and asked for the release of his shop and he gave a receipt in token of the fact that he had received back possession of the shop. During the course of cross examination of the witnesses it was not suggested that the appellant was not the shopkeeper or that he was not in possession of the articles seized, Only to (through?) witness No. 3. Tribhuwan Prasad, who described himself as a member of the Socialist party, it was suggested that the witness had not seen the appellant selling grains in the shop and that his father, Hanuman Prasad, was seen selling grains in that shop. This witness also said that the appellant was in some service outside the Chapra Town, but he could not say where it was. On the strength of the evidence of this witness it has been argued here that it has not been proved that the appellant was the shop-keeper. On this point the evidence of P. W. 7 the Municipal clerk of the Chapra Municipality is to the effect that he always realised the lental of the shop from the appellant himself. It may be that the father also may be sitting in the shop and doing day to day business, but the fact alone does not show that the appellant was not in charge of the business and had nothing to do with the dealings of the shop. It is likely that at times when P. W. 3 went to his shop he saw the father sitting in the Shop and selling grains. I find it difficult to believe if this witness was telling the truth to the effect that the appellant was in some service outside Chapra Town. If that were a fact, the evidence could have been more precise and definite. The appellant had denied at the trial that the signature on the show-cause petition was his. I find it difficult to believe if this witness was telling the truth to the effect that the appellant was in some service outside Chapra Town. If that were a fact, the evidence could have been more precise and definite. The appellant had denied at the trial that the signature on the show-cause petition was his. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses leave no room for doubt that it was the appellant who had signed the show cause petition and that it was he who had filed it before the A. D. S. O. I hold, therefore, that the show-cause petition bore the signature of the appellant and that he had filed the same. Under Clause 3, Bihar Food-grains Control Order, keeping or permitting others to keep certain quantity of foodgrains beyond the prescribed maximum is made penal, and in this case, in my opinion, it has been proved that the appellant was the shop-keeper and foodgrains were found in the shop beyond the prescribed maximum. In the circumstances, it cannot but be held that he had kept the said food-grains in his Shop. In the view which I have taken of the evidence, I am of opinion that the conviction of the appellant is correct. 8. The only question that remains to consider is the question of sentence and the rule issued by this Court for enhancement of the Sentence. So far as the quantum of fine is concerned, the fine has been imposed according to Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, and under the law the fine had to be twenty times the value of foodgrains found in the possession of the accused. There is no suggestion made at the Bar that this amount of fine is not correct. I feel, however, that the appellant is a small dealer and the amount of fine itself, which could not have been loss than what it is, is very heavy. Taking into consideration, that fact, in my judgment the ends of justice will be met if the term of imprisonment is reduced to four months, but instead of the imprisonment being Simple it should be rigorous. The Court below has directed that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant should undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for one year. The Court below has directed that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant should undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for one year. The term of simple imprisonment is altered to rigorous imprisonment and it is reduced to a period of four months. In effect, the conviction of the appellant under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Clause 3, Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, is affirmed and the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 11,878-7-0. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months, and he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 9. The appeal and the rule for enhancement of sentence is accordingly disposed of. Das, J. 10 I agree.