JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - The. applicant Ramesh Chand was found guilty by the learned trial Magistrate for contravening Conditions No. 2;b) 3(i) and (ii) of the Licence obtained by him in Form "D" under the Uttar Pradesh Foodgiains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 hereinafter referred to as the order and sentenced under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act-to a term of one year', R. 1. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Magistrate ordered that in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 30 days. The price of the foodgrain forming subject-matter of the offence of which the applicant was convicted was ordered to be forfeited to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, upheld the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence awarded to him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, Ramesh Chand was ordered, to undergo three weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court maintained the order of forfeiture of foodgrains recovered and return of the price of those foodgrains by the applicant to the State of Uttar Pradesh in term of the interim orders of this court dated 29th July, 1968. 2. The material facts giving rise to the conviction and sentence of the applicant or that on the 2nd August, 1967 Netrapal Singh, Inspector, C.I.D. Food Cell, Agra, received information that the applicant wa, contemplating to smuggle foodgrains from the area of Oat Police Outpost in the district of Mathura to the State of Rajasthan. Netrapal Singh consequently along with his superior Incharge Sri S. D. Rai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and some other police officials arrived in a jeep in village Saroorpur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Oat where the police party came across the applicant at mid-night intervening the 2nd and 3rd August, 1967. At that time, it is alleged, the applicant was proceeding from Saroorpur towards Oat. He was stopped and interrogated and is alleged to have informed the Inspector that he was going to village Ganjoli to arrange for transporting 60 bags of peas from there to Bhsratpur with the assistance of Constable Pratap Singh. At that time, it is alleged, the applicant was proceeding from Saroorpur towards Oat. He was stopped and interrogated and is alleged to have informed the Inspector that he was going to village Ganjoli to arrange for transporting 60 bags of peas from there to Bhsratpur with the assistance of Constable Pratap Singh. According to the prosecution case, Ramesh Chand also gave out information regarding storage of foodgrains by him at different places in Ginjoli, Lohra and Mal. It is alleged that at the pointing out of Ramesh Chand, the raiding party in the presence of witnesses recovered 59 quintals of peas from the houses of Smt. Reshmi, Sri Chand, Girraj Singh, Basdev, Sharan Singh and Basanta in village Ganjoli, 27 quintals of gram and 90 quintals 20 hg. wheat from the houses of Hukum Chand in village Lahora and 14 quintals of peas from the houses of Sharnbhu Daval and Gutnan Singh in village, 'Recovery-memos in rest of the articles recovered were prepared aid the foodgrains were en in the Supurdigi of various Supurdars. 3. It is aihed that the raiding party searched the basins s premises of mesh Chand at Oat and examined account books. There was mention of the above-mentioned food- ins in the account hooks which the applicant was required to maintsiri as dealer" in "foodgrains" under the conditions of his licence under the under. 4. According to the prosecution, the fooodgrains recovered belonged to Ramesh Chand and were meant for sale and he had stored them at places which found no mention in his Licence in Form "D". He had also not entered them in his registers and had thus committed a breach of Conditions 2 (b) and 3 (i) and (ii) of his Licence. 5. Ramesh Chand was also charged for the offence of non-submission of periodical returns as required by law but was acquitted on that account by the trial court. 6. In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- hereinafter referred to as the Code the applicant did not deny that he was the holder of the Licence in Form ''D" as a retail dealer in foodgrains under the Order. He neither denied the alleged recovery of the foodgrains nor that they belonged to him. 6. In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- hereinafter referred to as the Code the applicant did not deny that he was the holder of the Licence in Form ''D" as a retail dealer in foodgrains under the Order. He neither denied the alleged recovery of the foodgrains nor that they belonged to him. His defence was that the foodgrains had been purchased by him only a day or two before their seizure by the police and since it was raining heavily at the time of the purchases made by him and the roasts from the villages of purchases to Oal were water-logged, he could not remove the foodgrains to his godown at Oal. He did not deny that the foodgrains had not been entered in the registers maintained by him but claimed that since the foodgrains had not been brought to his godown he was not required under the law to disclose them in the registers. Ramesh Chand examined himself as a witness under section 342-A of the Code and produced two other witnesses in defence. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned, trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established contravention of the above mentioned Conditions of the Licence in Form "D" of the Order held by the applicant. The findings were affirmed by the court below. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Ramesh Chand has filed the present revision. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and the evidence on record. To my mind on the evidence on record the applicant has been rightly found guilty of the offences of which he had been charged and convicted accordingly. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing of the revision firstly contended that the evidence on record disclosed that at the time when Ramesh Chand had made the purchases of the foodgrains recovered, there were heavy rains resulting in water logging of the village roads making impossible the transport of the foodgrains from the villages of their purchases to the applicant's declared godown at Oal. It was submitted that in these circumstances the applicant could no be said to have stored the foodgrains for the purpose of sale. It was submitted that in these circumstances the applicant could no be said to have stored the foodgrains for the purpose of sale. It was urged that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant could not be said to have contravened Condition No. 2 (b) of the Licence held by him. It was further submitted that Condition No. 3 (i) and (ii) contemplated the entry of food- grains only after they have been removed to the applicant's godown f mentioned in his licence and since the foodgrains in question had not till the time of their recovery been stocked in his god- own at Oal, the applicant could not be held to have committed a breach of Condition No. 3(i) and (ii) of his Licence by his failure to enter them in his registers. There is, in my opinion, no force in either of the two contentions. 10. As a Court exercising revisional powers under section 439 of the Code, there is no occasion for me to re-assess the evidence believed by the two courts below and to examine the correctness or otherwise of findings of fact recovered by them. However since the learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the evidence on record, I consider it proper to ex- press my own view with regard to it in a few words. 11. It is significant that according to the evidence led by the prosecution and the admission made by the applicant, he had within a few days purchased considerable amount of food. grains in three separate villages costing a tidy amount of money. He is admittedly a businessman by profession dealing in sale and purchase of food- grains. It is inconceivable that he maintained no accounts of the numerous purchases made by him within a short time. He did not produce his account books or memorandum of accounts which it is impossible to believe that he did not have, in order to substantiate his plea that the purchases had been made by him only one or two days before their recovery by the raiding party on the 3rd August, 1961. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the foodgrains alleged to have been recovered by the prosecution in village Ganjoli were not, according to the prosecution case itself, directly purchased by Ramesh Chand. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the foodgrains alleged to have been recovered by the prosecution in village Ganjoli were not, according to the prosecution case itself, directly purchased by Ramesh Chand. The foodgrains had been purchased, according to the prosecution evidence itself, from the cultivators examined by the prosecution by P.W. 16 Duli Chand, who after 8 or 10 days sold them to the applicant. It was urged that the testimony of P.W. 1 Girriraj Singh, P.W. 2 Charan Singh, P.W. 3 Basanta, P.W. 4 Basdeo, P.W. 5 Shri Chand P.W. 7 Ramkhilari and P.W. 8 Mohan Singh of Ganjoli to the effect that 1)uli Chand had informed them that the foodgrains purchased had been sold by him to Ramesh Chand 8 or 10 days after the purchase made by him was mere hearsay. 12. It was submitted that the only admissible evidence to establish that Duli Chand had sold the foodgrains recovered from various houses in village Ganjoli to Ramesh Chand was-that of Duli Chand himself-Relying on the statement of Duli Chand, learned counsel submitted that it was admitted by this witness that at the time when he made the sales to Ramesh Chand, rains had already set in making impos. sible the village road from Ganjoli to Oal. A scrutiny of the evidence of Duli Chand discloses that he had been wonover by the accused and clearly made an attempt to help him. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the purchases from village Ganjoli had been in 'Asardh' of the year 1967. Thus, if he were to be believed, he had purchased the foodgrains in village Ganjoli sometime between the 22nd June, 1967 and the 22nd July, 1967. He deposed to the effect that after making the purchases, he sold them to Ramesh Chand about 8 or 10 days later. The raid itself took place on the 3rd August, 1967. His statement was designed to support the defence claim that Ramesh Chand had made purchases of the foodgrains recovered from Ganjoli only a day or two before their recovery. This witness is contradicted by P.W. I Girraj Singh, P.W. 2 Charan Singh, P.W. 3 Basanta, P.W. 4 Basdeo, P.W. 5 Shri Chand and others who consistently stated that purchases of foodgrains had been made from them in Jeth which means sometime between the 22nd May and 22nd June, 1967. This witness is contradicted by P.W. I Girraj Singh, P.W. 2 Charan Singh, P.W. 3 Basanta, P.W. 4 Basdeo, P.W. 5 Shri Chand and others who consistently stated that purchases of foodgrains had been made from them in Jeth which means sometime between the 22nd May and 22nd June, 1967. Duli Chand was declared hostile and when cross-examined by the prosecution made conflicting and contradictory statements disclosing his unreliability. To my mind, his evidence can be relied upon only for the purposes of establishing that about 8 or 10 days after having made purchases of foodgrains from various prosecution witnesses in village Ganjoli, he disposed them off to Ramesh Chand. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above to the effect that 8 or 10 days after they had sold foodgrains to Duli Chand, he conveyed to them information that he had sold them away to Ramesh Chand is not hearsay as contended by the learned counsel. The statement of Dul Chand to the effect that he sold the foodgrains to Ramesh Chand 8 or 10 days after his purchases is clearly admissible. The evidence of the sellers is not admissible for establishing sale by Duli Chand to Ramesh Chand but is admissible for the purpose of showing as to when information A-40 about the sale made by Duli Chand to Ramesh Chand was conveyed by him to the witnesses. I see no reason at all not to place reliance on the prosecution witnesses mentioned above in their assertion that foodgrains were sold by them to Duli Chand in Jeth. The evidence of Duli Chand establishes, as already stated, that he sold those foodgrains to Ramesh Chand only 8 or 10 days later. According to the evidence of the sellers of the foodgrains recovered from Ganjoli, at the time when they made the sales to Duli Chand, there were no rains. It was not suggested to any one of the witnesses that at the time when Duli Chand informed them of his having sold the foodgrains to Ramesh Chand, rains had set in. I consequently conclude that when Ramesh Chand purchased the foodgrains recovered from Ganjoli, rains had not set in and the roads leading from that village to Oal were not waterlogged. The recoveries were made on the 3rd August, 1967 from village Ganjoli after considerable time had elapsed between the purchases made by Ramesh Chand and that date. I consequently conclude that when Ramesh Chand purchased the foodgrains recovered from Ganjoli, rains had not set in and the roads leading from that village to Oal were not waterlogged. The recoveries were made on the 3rd August, 1967 from village Ganjoli after considerable time had elapsed between the purchases made by Ramesh Chand and that date. Ramesh Chand must have known that rains would start within a few weeks rendering impossible transport of the foodgrains purchased by him to his place of business in Oal. If he had been acting in a bona fide fashion, one would have expected him to take early steps to remove the foodgrains to the declared godown in village Oal which he did not do. The only inference justifiable is that he did so for the purpose of hoarding those foodgrains at various places in Ganjoli from where they were ultimately recovered. 13. It is not the defence case that the foodgrains recovered from Ganjoli were meant for consumption by Ramesh Chand himself of members of his family, etc. The foodgrains had admittedly been procured by Ramesh Chand for the purpose of ultimate sale. In these circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable, to my mind, that he stored them at various places in village Ganjoli for the purposes of selling them. It is not necessary in order to establish breach of Condition No. 2 (b) that the foodgrains should have been stored at the houses of different villagers at Ganjoli for the purposes of sale from those very places. In either case, whether the foodgrains were hoarded there for ultimate sale directly from those very places or after being conveyed to Oal or elsewhere, there would be a breach of Condition No. 2 (b) of the Licence. 14. The act was enacted to ensure the maintenance and increased supply of essential commodities and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to issue orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof to obtain those objectives. It was with this end in view that the Central and State Governments were given powers to pass orders in particular with regard to matters mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to issue orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof to obtain those objectives. It was with this end in view that the Central and State Governments were given powers to pass orders in particular with regard to matters mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act. The object of the Act is to enable the Central and the State Governments to pass orders to prevent hoarding, profiteering and black marketing in essential commodities including foodgrains. The very purpose of the Act and the Order passed thereunder would be defeated if Condition No. 2(b) of the Licence is held to mean that dealers in foodgrains can store them for consider- able length of time at places undeclared and hence beyond official supervision and thus keep them back for distribution to the consumers. It is significant that in Form "A" of Schedule lI of the Order, the applicant's place of business has to be disclosed at Serial No. 4 while the places of storage have to be dis- closed under the heading at serial No. 10(b). Similar is the situation in Forms "B" and "D" which show that the place of business may be quite different from the place of actual storage. It is thus clear that storage for sale for the purposes of the Order and the Licence issued thereunder does not mean that unless the foodgrains are intended to be sold from the place of storage itself, there can be no contravention of Condition No. 2(b) of Form "D" which prohibits storage of food- grains by a "dealer" at places other than the godowns disclosed in the Licence. I consequently have no hesitation in holding that the applicant was rightly found guilty of having committed breach of Condition No. 2(b) of the Licence in as far as he had stored foodgrains for sale at places not mentioned in the Licence. 15. The contention that the applicant cannot be held to have committed a breach of Conditions No. 3(i) and (ii) of his Licence in Form "D" is also without substance. 15. The contention that the applicant cannot be held to have committed a breach of Conditions No. 3(i) and (ii) of his Licence in Form "D" is also without substance. These Conditions are as follows : "3(i) The Licence shall, except when specially exempted by the State Government or by the licensing authority in this behalf, maintain a register of daily accounts for each of the foodgrains mentioned in paragraph I, showing correctly : (a) the opening stock on each day (b) ....................... (c) ........................ (d) the closing stock on each day. (ii) The licensee shall complete his accounts for each day on the day to which they relate unless prevented by reasonable cause the burden of proving which shall be upon him. (iii) A licensee who is a producer him- self shall separately show the stocks of his own produce in the daily account, if such stocks are stored in business premises". 16. Under Condition No. 4, a retail dealer of foodgrains holding a licence in Form "D" is also required to, unless exempted by the State Government or an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, to submit to the licensing authority concerned or to any other authority specified by that i authority a true return, in Form "C", of the stocks, receipts and deliveries of the foodgrains every month so as to reach him within seven days after e close of the month. 17. The entries at Serial No. 1 of Form "C" are as under : 1. Stock at the beginning of the month (a) actually with the stockist. (b) pledged with any person or institution such as a bank or co-operative society. Total ..............." 18. A dealer's stock does not consist of goods stored by him only in his godown entered under Item No. 2(b) of the Licence. Stock at the beginning of the month (a) actually with the stockist. (b) pledged with any person or institution such as a bank or co-operative society. Total ..............." 18. A dealer's stock does not consist of goods stored by him only in his godown entered under Item No. 2(b) of the Licence. As long as foodgrains are cored by a "dealer" anywhere for the purposes of ultimate sale, they constitute his stock and in the registers con- plated by Condition No. 3(i) of the licence the dealer must mention them respective of the consideration whether they are actually is the godown or t. In this connection it is significant t under Condition No. 3(iii) of Form ' it is specifically mentioned that a licensee who is a producer is required show the stock of his own produce the daily account only if such are stored in the business premise. Conditions No. 3(i) and (ii) in contra-distinction to 3(iii) do not provide at opening and closing stock shall be counted for, in the registers, only of foodgrains in the godowns mentioned Condition No. 2(b) of the Licence. is indicates, to my mind, that irrespective of the consideration as to whether foodgrains meant for sale by a dealer are stored in his declared godowns or not, they are considered to be is "stocks". In order to find out the notation of the word "stock", it is permissible to take re-accordance to Form ' the relevant portion of which has extracted above, since Form "C" the part of the same Order as Form "D", "Stock" according to Form "C" consists not only of food- grains actually with the stockists but also "pledged with any person or institution such as a bank or a co-operative society." Foodgrains pledged with individuals or institutions like bank or co-operative societies are evidently not in the godowns of the dealers and yet they are treated as stock of a dealer. There is no justification, to my mind, for holding that the word "stock" for the purposes of Condition No. 3 o: Form "D" has a meaning different from that word as used in Condition No. I of Form "C". There is no justification, to my mind, for holding that the word "stock" for the purposes of Condition No. 3 o: Form "D" has a meaning different from that word as used in Condition No. I of Form "C". If under Form "C" a dealer is required to mention foodgrains not actually in his declared godown but pledged with banks or co-operative societies, I see no reason why foodgrains stored by a dealer for ultimate sale at places other than his declared godowns should not be considered as his "stock" for the purposes of Condition No. 3(i) and 3(ii) of Form No. "D". 19. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that such an interpretation would lead to imposition of an impossible condition on dealers in foodgrains and would amount to an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on their business. It was submitted that it is impossible for a dealer in foodgrains to be aware of the foodgrains purchased by his agents for him at different places. It was urged that if Condition No. 3 is interpreted as requiring a dealer to enter daily in his registers all the foodgrains owned by him at different places and held on his account for ultimate sale, it would be impossible to comply with Condition No. 3(i). There is, to my mind, no such difficulty in complying with the requirements of Condition No. 3(i) and 3(ii). Condition No. 3(ii) specifically deals with situation of the character adverted to Ly the learned counsel. In such cases the licensee can always assert justification that he had been prevented by reasonable cause from completing his accounts as required by Condition No. 3(i) and (ii). 20. Learned counsel ultimately prayed for reduction in the sentence awarded to the applicant. I see no justification for acceding to the request. Those responsible for hoarding essential commodities and keeping them out of reach of the consumers are guilty of the gravest anti-social acts. Offences of the contractor of which the applicant has been found guilty result in desperate mobs committing food riots and other such acts which lead to break down of law and order on a large scale. Courts administering criminal justice cannot afford to be liberal and lenient in awarding sentences to those guilty of such crimes against society. Offences of the contractor of which the applicant has been found guilty result in desperate mobs committing food riots and other such acts which lead to break down of law and order on a large scale. Courts administering criminal justice cannot afford to be liberal and lenient in awarding sentences to those guilty of such crimes against society. In fact before parting with the face I cannot help remarking that the learned Sessions Judge had little justification for reducing the sentence awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Magistrate with whose exercise of discretion in the matter no exception could possibly be taken. 21. For the reasons given, I find no substance in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. The interim order staying realisation of fine is withdrawn. The applicant shall deposit the fine within two months.