JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNIVAS, J.:---The appellant has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clauses 4, 8 and 24 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (II) Order, 1966, and Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1963 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He has been also convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clauses 4, 8 and 24 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (II) Order 1966 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The present two appeals are directed only against his conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order 1963 and conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clauses 8 and 24 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (II) Order, 1966. It appears that the Rationing authorities received information that the accused had illegally stocked rice and wheat in his shop and godown and that he has been selling them at prices higher than those prescribed. The Assistant Controller of Rationing Shri Shete on 24th November, 1972 sent a bogus customer at about 9. 30 a.m. to the petitioners shop for purchasing one kilogram of rice from the accused. He gave him a marked currency note of Rs. 5/-. The clothes of the bogus customer were searched and no other amount was left with him. The customer went to the shop and purchased one kilogram of rice for Rs. 3/-. The petitioner gave Rs. 2/- to the bogus customer. On a signal given by this bogus customer, the raiding party went there and found a packet of rice of one kilogram and Rs. 2/- with the purchaser. They were seized and a panchnama was effected. Thereafter the shop of the accused was searched and in the search, 35 kilograms of rice, 110 kilograms of wheat and 90 kilograms of maida were found. 2/- with the purchaser. They were seized and a panchnama was effected. Thereafter the shop of the accused was searched and in the search, 35 kilograms of rice, 110 kilograms of wheat and 90 kilograms of maida were found. His godown was also searched and in that godown 700 kilograms of boiled rice, 75 kilograms of fine rice and 1100 kilograms of wheat were found. The foodgrains were taken charge of under a panchnama by the raiding party. The samples were given to the accused under a receipt signed by the accused. After completing the investigation, a challan was filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate. Three cases were started against the accused but they were ultimately amalgamated into one by the Magistrate and they were tried together in one trial. The learned Magistrate framed the charges. The charges were read over to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the Assistant Controller of the Rationing, Shri Shete. He stated how he had sent the bogus customer and how the foodgrains were seized from the accused. The two panch witnesses who accompanied Shri Shete were also examined on behalf of the prosecution. They have been cross-examined at length and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination which any way affects their veracity. The bogus customer was also examined and his evidence has also been accepted by the learned Magistrate. All this evidence clearly establishes that on that day, accused had in his possession 810 kilograms of rice and 1210 kilograms of wheat, while according to Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order 1963, he was entitled to hold not more than 10 quintals of foodgrains at any time. He was, therefore, rightly held guilty under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1963. He has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The sentence imposed is lenient and I do not see any reason to interfere with that sentence. He has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The sentence imposed is lenient and I do not see any reason to interfere with that sentence. Clause 8 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (II) Order, 1966, reads :--- "Acquisition of rationed foodgrains only by means of ration document.---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 upto the quantity specified or as represented by the units specified on that document." Nothing has been shown by the accused how he has acquired the foodgrains that were found in his possession. It is true that now he has filed some vouchers of having purchased foodgrains from some dealers. He has also invited my attention to some of the orders issued by the Government from time to time. Some of the orders show that purchase of special rice seems to have been exempted by the Government, but the petitioner has not shown which rice seized falls within that ambit. In absence of that evidence, it is not possible to accept the mere statement of the accused at this stage that he has acquired the foodgrains in legitimate manner. The petitioner has not submitted the declaration under that clause also. It was contended by the petitioner that the limits have been changed by the Government from time to time. It was initially 50 quintals. Then it was reduced to 25 quintals and now it was reduced to 10 quintals and it is not possible for the petitioner to keep pace with those notifications and, therefore, he should not have been held guilty on these technical grounds. It is not possible to accept this contention. The petitioner has been dealing in foodgrains since the last 30 years and he should know that restrictions are made in the interest of the public and he should have been alert to find out whether any changes have been effected. The last change was effected as early as in August 1972 and the limit has been reduced from 25 quintals to 10 quintals. The last change was effected as early as in August 1972 and the limit has been reduced from 25 quintals to 10 quintals. It is not, therefore, open to the petitioner to say that he was not aware of the notification. That being so, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner. So far as the sentence is concerned, the sentence is a matter of discretion of the trial Court and this Court will not interfere with it unless it is unduly harsh and, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with it. In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate are confirmed. The accused to surrender to his bail within a fortnight from today. Criminal Application No. 1000 of 1973 for additional evidence is rejected. ------