JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act) for contravention of various clauses of the Rajasthan Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order 1971 (for short the Order hereinafter) and sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under the aforesaid offence reduced the sentence and sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one week's simple imprisonment. 2. The accused-petitioner is the owner of a shop situated at village Juda in Tahsil Kotra District Udaipur. He also dealt in kerosene oil and was a licensed dealer. On July 27, 1974 Bharat Kumar the then Enforcement Inspector, inspected the business premises of the accused petitioner and detected contravention of the various clauses of the order as well as of the conditions of the licence issued to him. Three contraventions of the Order and of the terms of the licence were detected, namely, (i) non maintainability of a licence as envisaged by clause (iii) of the Order; (ii) showing excess price of kerosene in the price-list; and (iii) non maintaining of a sale-register. The learned trial court convicted the accused-petitioner on all the three counts, but the learned appellate court taking note of the fact that the licence had been renewed upto 31st December, 1976, acquitted the accused petitioner on the first count, namely, non-maintaining of a licence, but convicted the accused-petitioner of the other two counts. 3. I have heard Mr. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. On the material on record it can hardly be disputed that price of kerosene oil was not correctly displayed as required under clause (10) of the Order. Under clause (8), license cannot sell kerosene oil at rates higher than those fixed from time to time. It can be said that at the relevant time, the price of kerosene fixed by the competent authority was Rs. 1.08 per liter. The price of kerosene oil displayed was Rs. 1.10 P. per liter. Under clause (8), license cannot sell kerosene oil at rates higher than those fixed from time to time. It can be said that at the relevant time, the price of kerosene fixed by the competent authority was Rs. 1.08 per liter. The price of kerosene oil displayed was Rs. 1.10 P. per liter. Under clause (10) that price of kerosene oil which is fixed under clause (8) of the Order has to be displayed. Therefore, there was clear contravention of clause (10) of the Order. The accused-petitioner was also rightly convicted on the count that he was not maintaining a register in the prescribed form. 4. The contention of Mr. Mathur is that the learned appellate court has itself observed that there were adequate and special reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed. In the opinion of the learned lower appellate court the contravention of the clauses of the Order and the condition of the licence has not caused substantial harm to the general public or to the individual and as such it was a case in which the sentence less than the minimum prescribed should be awarded. The accused has already undergone about 8 days' imprisonment. Mr. Mathur gives out that the accused has already left the business. 5. I am of the opinion that the sentence already undergone by the accused and a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- shall meet the ends of justice. 6. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act for contravention of clause (10) of the Order and condition 6 of the licence, 1 reduce the sentence, and sentence the accused-petitioner to sentence of imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 7 days' simple imprisonment. Mr. Mathur gives out that the fine has already been deposited by the accused-petitioner. It is verified from the file that the fine was so deposited on 14-8-76.Revision partly allowed. *******