Short Note : 1. This is a revision by the State for enhancement of the sentence of the accused non-applicants herein, who have been convicted for the offence under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965 read with Clause 3 of the M.P. Rice (Movement) Control Order, 1957 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 each or in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month each. 2. The accused persons have been convicted for exporting the rice from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra without permit in breach of Clause 3 of the said order. 3. The accused persons have been convicted on the plea of guilty. 4. The case of the accused-non-applicants so far as the penalties are concerned, is covered under sub-section (1) (a) (ii) of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Held : From the provisions contained in section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it is apparent that the imposition of substantive sentence of imprisonment is a must. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-non-applicants was unable to point out any provision to the effect that the award of substantive sentence of imprisonment was not mandatory; but she contended that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 401 that as an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 377 lay on the ground of adequacy of the sentence, the revision is not maintainable. 6. This contention about the maintainability of revision cannot be accepted, because in the present revision there is no question of adequacy of sentence, but is a case where sentence as was required to be imposed by law in the event of conviction has not been imposed. It is not necessary to dilate much on this point in view of the fact that I am of the opinion that even if an appeal lay, it is a case wherein in the interest of justice, even this revision could be heard as an appeal and has been heard as such. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-non-applicant did not challenge the propriety of the conviction and in my opinion rightly. 8. The trial Court, therefore, committed illegality in not imposing the sentence of imprisonment and only awarding a sentence of fine as indicated hereinabove. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-non-applicant did not challenge the propriety of the conviction and in my opinion rightly. 8. The trial Court, therefore, committed illegality in not imposing the sentence of imprisonment and only awarding a sentence of fine as indicated hereinabove. It appears that the amended provisions of section 7, as amended by the Act No. 30 of 1974, was not brought to the notice of the trial Court. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the accused-non-applicants, who are convicted for the aforesaid offence are sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100 each or in default to suffer one month's further rigorous imprisonment each. 10. The minimum sentence prescribed is three months, but in view of the fact that the incident is of the year 1975 that is 21-5-1975, the seized rice has also been ordered to be forfeited to the State and the accused person have in a straightforward manner pleaded guilty, in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (1) (a) (ii) of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act a sentence of imprisonment of one month that is less than 3 months has been awarded. 11. The order with regard to the forfeiture of the seized rice to the State and the return of Car No. MRW 5938 of the trial Court is confirmed. Revision allowed.