M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the revision preferred by Nathuram Jam son of Barelal, who, on his conviction under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, has been sentenced to one years R. I. and to pay the fine of Rs, 4,000/ -. ( 2 ) THE applicant-accused was the duly appointed retail or under the M. P. Food. Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960 for supply and sale of sugar at control rates to the ration-card holders within the area of Dargwan Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, his monthly quota fixed was 15 quintals of sugar. It is equally not in dispute that 10 bags of sugar, containing five quintals in total, which had been seized in the early hours on the night of 5-7-1978, vide seizure memo Ex. P-2, at Surajpura tn-junction near the bus-stop, did belong to the applicant-accused, as being part of the total monthly quota, supplied to him for purposes of distribution from his Control-shop. The position is equally admitted that the applicant-accused, in the past, had contested the election of Panchayat Sarpanch against P. W. 2 Bhopendra Singh; and they had their respective fractions in the village due to election rivalry. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that in the early hours of the night of 5-7-1978, the applicant-accused had arranged to send ten bags of sugar i. e. five quintals to Surajpura tn-junction for loading the same in a private Chhatarpur Sagar bus, which, as usual, had stopped at the bus- stop for going towards Sagar side. Some persons of the village had seen these bags being loaded from the applicant-accuseds house in a bullock-cart for transport to the bus-stand. Suspecting that these bags of sugar were being smuggled out for export to places outside Durgawan area, these persons apprised Bhupendra Singh, who, in turn, reported the matter to the Company Commander B-Company of 16th Batallion posted in the village. The Company Commander, on getting this information, rushed to Surajpura tn-junction and seized the ten bags of sugar at the time when three bags had already been loaded in the bus and the remaining seven were still kept in the bullock-cart for being loaded in the bus. The fact of seizure was reported promptly at the police- station Bada Malhara. The Company Commander, on getting this information, rushed to Surajpura tn-junction and seized the ten bags of sugar at the time when three bags had already been loaded in the bus and the remaining seven were still kept in the bullock-cart for being loaded in the bus. The fact of seizure was reported promptly at the police- station Bada Malhara. After due investigation, the applicant-accused was put up for trial for commission of the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for contravention of clauses 4 and 15 of the M. P. Food Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Control Order. The applicant-accused abjured the guilt in the trial Court and specifically contended that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity of certain village people and more particularly, of the S. A. F. (Special Armed Force) police staff, stationed there, inasmuch as he had refused to relent to their illegal demand of supply of sugar to them without any ration cards. It was also pleaded by him that out of 15 quintals of sugar, he had already earlier brought 10 quintals but for want of proper conveyance, he was unable to bring at the same time the remaining five quintals, which, hence, he had kept at the house of Nathu Ram Jam, Malhara to be brought later when convenient and when transport could be available. According to him, on the relevant date i. e. on 5-7-1978, he had arranged to get this five quintals i. e. 10 bags of sugar from Malhara to Surajpura tn-junction in a tractor of one Deokinandan with the intent that he could thereafter fetch the same from the tn-junction to his house shop in village Durgawan by local transport i. e. by bullock-cart or otherwise. It is in these circumstances that his 10 bags of sugar had been seized at the tn-junction. Defence evidence in this regard was also adduced. ( 4 ) THE trial Court, disbelieving the defence stand and the defence evidence and relying on the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. The appeal preferred against the same, was equally dismissed and, hence, now, the present revision. Defence evidence in this regard was also adduced. ( 4 ) THE trial Court, disbelieving the defence stand and the defence evidence and relying on the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. The appeal preferred against the same, was equally dismissed and, hence, now, the present revision. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant-accused has urged before me that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have unduly disregarded the defence of the prosecution witnesses, who belonged to his rival party and were inimical to him. Finally, it is urged that the sentence as awarded, is too severe and as such, deserves to be suitably modified. ( 6 ) THE arguments advanced have no merits whatsoever. On scrutiny of the evidence on record and on careful perusal of the detailed judgments of the two Courts below. It is manifest that both the Courts below have, with due care and caution assessed the evidence on record-both on the side of prosecution as well as, the applicant-accused. They are found to be fully alive to certain village factionalism due to panchayat elections wherein the applicant accused and P. W. 2 Bhupendra Singh were pitted against each other about a year before the present offence in question; and after keeping this fact in view, they are found to have discussed and appreciated the whole evidence. Both the Courts below and more particularly, the trial Court, with cogent reasoning, have discarded the defence evident as a sheer concoction. Furthermore, both the Courts have found the prosecution story truthful, placing reliance on more than sufficient and cogent evidence and treating the minor inconsistencies here and there as being of no material consequence. A few prosecution witnesses who had signed panchnamas Exs. P-2 arid P-3, had turned hostile and their evidence was discarded for cogent reasons, as discussed by the lower appellate Court and no less by the trial Court. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence, it is not open to this Court to re-evaluate and re-assess the whole evidence, particularly when the appreciation on the part of the Courts below is not found to be perverse; and on the contrary, is found to be well discussed and well reasoned with an open mind. ( 7 ) ALL the same, even on going through the whole evidence afresh, it is noticed that the consistent and corroborative evidence of P. W. 8 Dharma, P. W. 9 Ramsingh and P. W. 7 Badri Prasad indisputably proves that the applicant-accused had arranged to send his 10 bags of sugar from his house to the Surajpura tn-junction and that, three bags had already been loaded in the bus and the rest were at the stage of being loaded therein from the bullock-cart, when on the sudden arrival of the S. A. F. posse, the carriers Rajaram and Hiralal had fled away. This fact is further corroborated by the S. A. F. Head Constables P. W. 1 Rambabu and P. W. 3 Raja Bhaiya and also by the star-witness P. W. 2 Bhupendra Singh, who had brought one S. A. F. people on the scene for seizing the stock of sugar, which was purported to be smuggled out of the area. Seizure of 10 bags of sugar is found to be duly proved and equally not disputed. ( 8 ) IT may be pertinently observed that the explanation and the defence evidence offered by the applicant-accused in the matter of bringing only 10 quintals of sugar from the Food Corporation Godown and keeping the remaining five quintals at the house of Nathu Ram Jam (another person) at Bada Malhara, for being brought later at convenience as and when transport could be available, are just a cock and bull story without any rational basis. If 10 quintals could be brought at one time, the remaining five also could be brought alongwith the same and if, at all, five quintals had been brought later in a tractor, the same would have normally been taken directly to the applicant- accuseds house or shop rather than, dumping it at the bus stop of the Surajpura tn-junction. Even the tractor drivers oral testimony on the defence side is totally false, as has already been discussed by both the Courts below. Even the tractor drivers oral testimony on the defence side is totally false, as has already been discussed by both the Courts below. From the consistent and corroborative and equally, reliable evidence on the prosecution side, as has already been ably discussed both by the lower appellate Court and no less by the trial Court, the commission of offence in question is established against the applicant accused beyond any shadow of doubt and as such, the order of conviction, with no scope for interference, at all, is maintained. ( 9 ) COMING to the question of sentence, leniency, as prayed for, is absolutely unwarranted to any extent, whatsoever. Commission of economic offences, as of the present nature, in the interest of welfare and well-being of the society, can not be leniently viewed or else, there would be undue impetus to smugglers and black-marketers. The sentence as awarded by the lower appellate Court, being found to be quite proper, does not deserve to be disturbed in the least. ( 10 ) IN the result, thus, the revision being patently without any merit, is dismissed and the order of conviction as well as the order of sentence as awarded by the lower appellate Court, are maintained in toto. The applicant-accused, who is on bail, do immediately surrender to his ban to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, and he do immediately pay the fine amount also, failing which, the same be immediately realized according to the process of law. Appeal dismissed .