JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. According to the prosecution the Khandsari Inspector alongwith other officials of the department made a surprise inspection of a Khandsari Unit in the Jungle of village Islamnagar, Police Station Nakur and found the applicant working at the unit with a power crusher without licence. 3. Before the trial court the prosecution has examined the Khandsari Inspector, Shri S. S. Dubey (P.W. 1) and Shri Ram Dass Verma (P.W. 2) to prove the prosecution case. The trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the finding of conviction recorded by the courts below is incorrect. I have carefully gone through the two judgments and the findings recorded by the two courts below, in my opinion, do not suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. The applicant admittedly had no licence to run Khandsari Unit on the date of the incident. The applicant has raised a plea that he had a permit to purchase sugar cane but the aforesaid plea was not substantiated. From the aforesaid it is clear that the applicant was rightly held to be guilty for having committed an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause (3) of the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Cane Manufacturing Licensing Order, 1967, as also clause (3) of the U.P. Restriction of Sugar Cane Purchase Order, 1966. The contention raised by the learned counsel, therefore, has no force. 5. In the end, the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant is a poor person and that the incident had taken place more than 3 years back and that he is not operating the crusher. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case specially the fact that the power crusher was sealed and was given in the Supure of another person and also the fact that the incident had taken place more than 3 years ago, the interest of justice requires that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced from three months to a period of 1 months. As far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same is upheld. 6. As far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same is upheld. 6. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is dismissed except that the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant is reduced from three months to a period of 1 months. The applicant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo imprisonment for three months. The applicant is allowed two months time from today to deposit the fine. An affidavit has been filed that the applicant could not be enlarged on bail as he failed to furnish sureties. However, in case the applicant is on bail he will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of imprisonment.