JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner in this revision has challenged the conviction u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 8 of the Orissa Kerosine Control Order, 1962 (for short the 'Order') and sentence of six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/ in default to R.I. for seven days also confirmed in appeal. 2. The charge against the Petitioner is of his having been found with five tins containing 80 litres of kerosine on 25.9.79 by P.W. 3 Supply Inspector and a Supply Supervisor. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the witnesses to the seizure. Both the courts below found the same against the Petitioner proved through the evidence of P.W. 3 for sustaining the conviction. 3. It is admitted by Mr. S.D. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that possession of kerosine in excess of 5 litres is not permissible in accordance with the provisions of the order. He however contends, as is the defence plea, that the fact of seizure from the Petitioner has not been established. It is his submission that the seizure witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) having been declared hostile they having not supported the seizure, the sole evidence of P.W. 3, the Supply Inspector without any corroboration is not- reliable to find the Petitioner guilty of the offence. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on (1988) I O.C.R. 287 (Sri Kodanda Dehuri v. State of Orissa) wherein it was decided in a case u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 that possession of the contraband articles had to be established not alone through the Sub-Inspector of Excise but also some amount of independent corroboration should be called upon since the offence under the provisions call for a substantive sentence to be imposed. 4. Ext. 1 is the seizure list and signatures of the Petitioner appear both in the seizure list and also on its reverse as having accepted a copy of it. Even if the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 who is a departmental witness and nothing has been stated against him so as to discredit his worth as a witness. Ext. Even if the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 who is a departmental witness and nothing has been stated against him so as to discredit his worth as a witness. Ext. 1 is also proved through P.W. 3 and hence it not only proved the seizure but also provided independent corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the fact of seizure. The view taken by me also gets support from a decision in AIR 1978 S.C. 1511 (Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan) wherein their Lordships held that if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. Of course, Ext. 2 is another statement purported to have been signed by the Petitioner acknowledging the fact of seizure from him. Though the learned appellate court has placed reliance on such document yet in view of the statement made by the Petitioner in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that his signature was obtained by force and the writing in the document having not been proved, it will not be safe to rely upon the same. But, however, the Petitioner having signed in the seizure list and received a copy thereof, the contention that the same has been obtained by force has no substance there being no evidence to that effect. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision so far as the conviction of the Petitioner is concerned. 5. Regarding sentence, it does not appear from the evidence of the Petitioner having been a previous offender. It is stated that the Petitioner would have been of the age of 21 or 22 years at the time of committing the offence. It does, not appear that both the courts below have considered the question regarding sentence from this angle u/s 360 Code of Criminal Procedure which is mandatorily required to be done u/s 361 Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence. I think it is a fit case where the Petitioner should be released on a bond of Rs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence. I think it is a fit case where the Petitioner should be released on a bond of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties each for the like amount for a period of three years to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and to receive sentence as- and when called upon by the court during the period. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed