JUDGMENT-This appeal is directed against the order of sentence passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay. Both the appellants were prosecuted for carrying 7659 kgs. of rice after acquiring the same into Bombay rationed area. They were therefore charged for the offences punishable under clauses 8 and 23 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 (hereinafter called "the Order") read with sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. I am asked to intervene only in the matter of sentence inflicted by the trial Court. Both the appellants were not only convicted for the offence punishable under clause 8 of the Order but also convicted for the offence punishable under clause 23 of the Order and on each of the two counts they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The objection is to the sentence inflicted on both the counts. The point therefore that arises here for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate was right in inflicting the sentence on both the counts. 2. Clause 8 of the Order is as follows: "8. Except as otherwise provided by or under this Order rationed foodgrains shall be purchased, acquired or obtained only by means of a ration document available for lawful use and lawfully used. and only up to the quantity specified or as represented by the units specified on that document." 3. The relevant portion of clause 23 of the Order is as follows: "23. No person shall move or attempt to move or abet the movement of any rationed food grains from any rationing area to any area outside it or from such outside area into the rationing area accept under and in accordance with a transport permit granted by the Controller of Rationing or any other Officer empowered by the State Government or the Controller in this behalf .……. 4. It is therefore clear from the above Clauses that not only acquisition of rationed foodgrains without a permit is unlawful but also movement of any rationed foodgrains from any rationing area to any area outside it. It is contended here that movement of rationed foodgrains cannot be made until and unless rationed foodgrains were acquired for the purpose. 4. It is therefore clear from the above Clauses that not only acquisition of rationed foodgrains without a permit is unlawful but also movement of any rationed foodgrains from any rationing area to any area outside it. It is contended here that movement of rationed foodgrains cannot be made until and unless rationed foodgrains were acquired for the purpose. Unless and until therefore a person is in possession of the rationed foodgrains it would be impossible for him to move the foodgrains. It is therefore contended that for any offence under clause 23 there should not only be acquisition of foodgrains but also its transport. The acquisition part is also an offence under clause 8. According to Mr. Sardar, the learned advocate for the appellants, the Court is not empowered to order a separate sentence on each count for such offences. Under Section 71, Indian Penal Code were anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided. Under this section it is further provided that where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or, where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves Constitute an offence, constitute, when combined. a different offence the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for anyone of such offences. Now the act of moving the rationed foodgrains would mean that he should acquire them and then move them. In a given case the person who acquired the foodgrains may be different from the person who moves them. In that case different considerations will arise. But section 71, Indian Penal Code would be attracted if the same person after acquiring the foodgrains transports them. The trial Magistrate in the instant case held the accused guilty not only under clause 8 but also under clause 23. In other words they are the persons who not only acquired the foodgrains but also the persons who transported them without permit. Therefore, in my view section 71, Indian Penal Code will be attracted to the facts of this case. In other words they are the persons who not only acquired the foodgrains but also the persons who transported them without permit. Therefore, in my view section 71, Indian Penal Code will be attracted to the facts of this case. The offender cannot then be punished twice. 5. The learned Presidency Magistrate is empowered to award a maximum fine of Rs. 2,000. He did award the fine of Rs. 2,000 but awarded it twice for the offences. It appears to me therefore that the order of sentence for one or the other count would have to be set aside. The imprisonment in this case unfortunately is only for one day and not more because the accused pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate probably was under the impression that when he was sentencing the appellants to a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count, the sentence of imprisonment need not be more. The State had not asked for enhancement of sentence. This Court also had not issued a notice of enhancement of sentence. In the circumstances therefore no more sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted. 6. In the result, therefore, I confirm the order of conviction passed against both the appellants for the offence punishable under clause 8 of the Order as well as under clause 23 of the Order but modify the sentence. Each of them is ordered under clause 23 to suffer simple imprisonment for a day and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. More fine, if paid, shall be refunded. 7. Rule made absolute.