Judgment 1. This is an application in revision. Both the petitioners have been convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened the provisions of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the order) an Order made under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they were sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 each and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The quantity of kerosene oil which constituted the subject of the offence was also ordered to be forfeited. On appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year and the fine to Rs. 1000.00 and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case were that on the night between 2nd/3rd June, 1968 at about 1.30 A.M. the petitioners were found carrying eight tins full of kerosene oil on two rickshaws to Teghra where they live and carry on business. The informant Medho Sah (P. W. 1) who was sleeping in his tea-stall near Teghra police-station, woke up and saw the tins being carried on the rickshaws, A police constable who happened to be the orderly of the Inspector of Police, Teghra, also arrived there and the petitioners were apprehended along with two rickshaws loaded with the tins of kerosene oil including the two rickshaw pullers. The Inspector of police who lived close by also arrived and directed the orderly constable to take the petitioners along with the rickshaws loaded with the kerosene oil including the rickshaws pullers to Teghra police-station. According to the petitioner the rickshaws loaded with kerosene oil tins and the rickshaws pullers were taken to Teghra police station where a first information was lodged. The petitioners and the two rickshaw pullers were taken into custody and the tins seized. When nothing was found against the rickshaw pullers, they were released after their statements were recorded under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having contravened the provisions of the Order and they were thereupon put on trial with the result already mentioned. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had not contravened the provisions of Cl. After the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having contravened the provisions of the Order and they were thereupon put on trial with the result already mentioned. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had not contravened the provisions of Cl. (7) of the order as they had not till then stored the kerosene oil at their premises, Cl, (7) of the Order provides as follows : "Restrictions against storage: No person other than a licensee shall keep or store in any premises occupied by him or permit any other person to keep or store in any such premises a quantity of kerosene exceeding 37 litres (two tins containing eight Imperial gallons) unless he has obtained a written permission from the District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate or Special Officer In-charge, Rationing, Patna within the limits of whose jurisdiction the kerosene is kept or stored, authorising him to do so." 4. It has been argued that a contravention of S. 7 of the Order could have taken place only after the eight tins of kerosene oil had been kept or stored in any premises occupied by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel no offence at all had been committed because the tins were still In transit. I do not think there Is any substance in this argument. It is true that the eight tins of kerosene oil were still In the process of transit to the place of the petitioners but there can be little doubt that they were taking the tins to their place and as such It must be held that they were attempting to contravene the provisions of Cl. (7) of the Order, S. 8 of the Act provides that any person who attempted to contravene or abets a contravention of any order made under S. 3 shall be deemed to have contravened that order. In view of the above provision of S. 8 of the Act it must be held that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Cl. (7) of the licensing order and therefore they had been rightly convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. In view of the above provision of S. 8 of the Act it must be held that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Cl. (7) of the licensing order and therefore they had been rightly convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. It has been submitted that the sentences are rather too harsh and severe inasmuch as the petitioners are small dealers and therefore the sentences of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone, even though the amount of fine may be allowed to stand. I do agree that the sentences taken together are rather severe but I do not agree that the sentences of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone. The period undergone is only ten days. The offence was undoubtedly an anti-social one and the fact that it had been committed at the dead of the night is an indication that it was only a chance that it could be detected. I, however, think that the ends of justice in this case shall be met by imposing of a shorter sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, I reduce the sentences of one year to three months rigorous imprisonment. Subject to this modification in the sentence of imprisonment only, the application is hereby dismissed.