Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 18/1/1980 whereby he has maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner under sections 3/1 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short Tthe Act) and has reduced the sentence from three months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and In default, to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that the Enforcement Officer, Rajsam and Shri Jagdish Chandra checked the sugar stock of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samtti, Badarda of which the accused-petitioner was the manager and it was found that the sugar was short by 31 kilos and 500 gms. After Investigation, the case against the accused- petitioner was challaned in the learned lower court and where he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. On appeal, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced as mentioned above. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the accused but he has submitted that the occurrence is dated 22. 5. 1975, more than 11 years have already elapsed. The accused was only the servant of the cooperative society. He has already remained in custody for 6 days after his appeal was dismissed and for 2 days during investigation and thus, in all he has remained in custody for 8 days. He has, therefore, submitted that after such a long time, it would be unjust to send him back to the custody. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner being a low paid employee, a lenient view regarding sentence should be taken. Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in this case, the amount of fine should be Increased. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner being a low paid employee, a lenient view regarding sentence should be taken. Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in this case, the amount of fine should be Increased. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. The occurrence is more than 11 years old and the accused-petitioner was only an employee of the cooperative society and so, a lenient view is called for. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it just and proper to sentence the accused-petitioner to the period of his custody together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to further undergo one months rigorous Imprisonment. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision partly succeeds. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under sections 3/7 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100. 00 and in default, to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of his custody together with a fine of Rs. 100. 00 and in default, to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of fine has already been deposited by the accused-petitioner.