Short Note : 1. By this revision the applicant seeks to challenge his conviction for the offence punishable under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with subclause (1) of clause 3 of the M.P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. The contravention found proved was of storing food grain for sale without obtaining a licence under the aforesaid Control Order. The trial Court held that the applicant-accused was engaged in the business of food grain in the village and storage of about 23 quintals of food grains including wheat, grain and other pulses, was in connection with the business of sale and purchase. The usual defence, that the stock in question was out of the produce of the agricultural holding of the applicant and that a part of the same belonged to Bhangi who had also stored his agricultural produce with him, was rejected. It is true that the applicant and the other person Bhangi did own agricultural land and had cultivated the same, but the acreage under cultivation for the respective crops and the possible extent of the yield was not sufficient to cover the entire stock. The applicant-accused, who also had a Kirana shop in the village was found dealing with the sale and purchase of food grain without licence. The stock seized was confiscated and the applicant-accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months in addition to a fine of Rs.1,200. 2. Held: Under the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the material on record, it was not possible to contend that the finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court was liable for interference at this stage in revision by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, however, contended that the sentence awarded was absolutely disproportionate and was on extraneous consideration. Apart from confiscating the entire stock and imposing a fine of Rs.1,200, the applicant was also sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months. It was urged that normally, in such cases, the sentence of imprisonment was not imposed and there was no case made out for making a departure. Apart from confiscating the entire stock and imposing a fine of Rs.1,200, the applicant was also sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months. It was urged that normally, in such cases, the sentence of imprisonment was not imposed and there was no case made out for making a departure. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and find that the reasons given by the trial Court for imposing the sentence of imprisonment also in addition to fine are that since there were certain overwritings in the Patwari-records, the same might have been got done by the applicant in collusion with Patwari. The applicant was not tried for such charges. Merely on surmises and conjectures, this could not and should not have been made a ground for imposing the severe punishment. Sentence of imprisonment set aside. Revision partly allowed.