Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below by which the sole petitioner has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 28-11-1973 at about 7 p.rn. the business premises of the petitioner, named and styled as M/s. Kamla Prasad Laxmi Prasad who happened to be a Vanaspati Oil Dealer had been subjected to an enquiry but the shop was found closed and when the authorities wanted to seal that shop, the mother of the petitioner turned up and the shop was opened by her. The stocks available in the shop were seized. No body came forward to produce the daily stock register and other connected documents. However, the petitioner appeared before the authorities next day and produced necessary documents. 3. Further the allegation against the petitioner was that he had sold Vanaspati on 24-11-1973 to one Raghavendra Narayan Mehta and had charged Rs. 140.46 p. instead of the price being Rs. 137.30 p. It appears that the charge for charging higher price has failed. However, the petitioner has been found guilty for the offence for non-production of the stock registers and connected papers and documents and that has been construed to be contravention of the licensing order relating to Vanaspati Oil and thus found guilty and convicted. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would appear that admittedly the petitioner was not present in the shop and thus no criminal liability can be attached to him. Further it has been stated that it would appear from Ext. 10 which is a report of the Marketing Officer, dated 12-12-1973 that the stock registers etc. had been produced by the dealer and it was found that the stocks found and seized tallied with the entries made in the stock register. Further from the report it appears that the petitioner had given sufficient explanation for non-appearance when the raiding party had gone to his shop. 5. Therefore, the main point for consideration would be as to whether any criminal liability is fastened in the facts and circumstances of the case against the petitioner. Further from the report it appears that the petitioner had given sufficient explanation for non-appearance when the raiding party had gone to his shop. 5. Therefore, the main point for consideration would be as to whether any criminal liability is fastened in the facts and circumstances of the case against the petitioner. 6. It would appear that absolutely nowhere it has been contended that the date on which the raid had been made was a closure day. Further it appears that the raid had been made during the business hours and it was expected that the shop should have been opened. However, for any reason, if the shop had been closed, there is no indication that there was any notice to that effect. Under the circumstances, non-production of the documents on the date of raid will amount to contravention of the licensing order. It is because if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then in that case invariably in all circumstance, whenever there is a knowledge that the shop would be raided, the owner of the shop may escape the liability by closing the shop and slipping away. It would appear from the prosecution case that the mother had opened the shop when they were going to seal the shop. Absolutely, there is no indication that the mother had uttered a single word giving sufficient explanation with regard to the dealer. In my opinion, a shop must be made available for inspection during the business hours whenever it is required for inspection. 7. The report of the Marketing Officer (Ext. 10), dated 12-12-1973 firstly has no relevancy and secondly, in my opinion, such belated report does not inspire any confidence. Moreover, it would appear that a sanction is accorded and when sanction has been deemed to be valid, all these materials must have been examined and in this view of the matter, the report of the Marketing Officer (Ext. 10) cannot be a ground to exonerate the petitioner of the charge. 8. In addition, the prosecution is not for any discrepancy found between the stock and the entries made but definitely the prosecution is for non-production of registers and documents which ought to have been done as a legal obligation being the terms and conditions of the licence. 10) cannot be a ground to exonerate the petitioner of the charge. 8. In addition, the prosecution is not for any discrepancy found between the stock and the entries made but definitely the prosecution is for non-production of registers and documents which ought to have been done as a legal obligation being the terms and conditions of the licence. Under the circumstahces, even if the stock and the registers tallied, that would not exonerate that part of the allegation that the registers and the relevant papers had not been produced. Therefore, absolutely no case for interference on the question of conviction has been made out. 9. However, I am inclined to consider the question of sentence. It is because the occurrence took place in the year 1973, about 13 years back. Moreover, the petitioner is stated to be the only earning member in his family and by now the petitioner must have been aged about 50 years. He has lived in jail for about 2-3 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the period of imprisonment already spent in jail will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is hereby altered and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine imposed remains unaltered. 10. With the above modification in setence, this application is dismissed.