JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal appeal is being disposed of finally, at this stage. 2. The appellants have been convicted vide judgment dated 3rd January, 89, by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, for offence u/s. 4 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu-Bhoj Act, 1960 ("the Act"), and each of them has been sentenced to 1 month's RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 week's RI. 3. One Radheyshyam Chowhan lodged a report at PS - Manoharthana on 31st July, 87, alleging that on account of death of one Bhanwarlal Lodha, his son, Ramchandra Lodha was performing the ceremony of `Mrityu-Bhoj' in which 16 quintals of wheat, 4 quintals of sugar etc. were being consumed, which was a social-offence, and so, that be stopped, On this information, the police reached the spot; but, by that time, the people had already taken their meals. According to the investigation, 3-4 thousand people were invited at the said '`rityu-Bhoj'. After completing investigation, a challan was submitted u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, after the trial, found that the appellants had contravened the provisions of S. 3 of the Act, and that thus, they were liable to be punished u/s. 4 of the Act. Both the appellants were thus found guilty and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. In the memo of appeal, the appellants have raised so many legal points, but, the learned counsel for the appellants did not press any of those points, nor did he argue on the merits of the case. His only submission was that this was the first offence of both the appellants; and that the father of the appellants had died and so, they had made arrangements for a `Katha', and in that `Katha', they had invited certain persons. According to the learned counsel, no doubt, quite a large number of people were invited to take their meals, but, he does not challenge the appellants' convictions, but only prays that in the circumstances in which the ceremony was performed, they instead of being awarded some substantive sentence, may be released on probation. Appellant Ramchandra has already been in Jail since 3rd January, 89. 6. Appellant Ramchandra has already been in Jail since 3rd January, 89. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor objected that this is a social-offence, and that giving a 'Bhoj' to 3-4 thousand persons is a crime to the society, and therefore, no lenient view be taken. 7. I have heard both the parties. Looking to the circumstances of the case, I feel that the appellants instead of being awarded some substantive sentence, may be released on probation, but, some fine has to be imposed on them. 8. The appellants are found guilty u/s. 4 of the Act. However, instead of passing any substantive sentence against them, it is directed that they each shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for not performing such 'Mrityu-Bhoj' in future. Appellant Ramchandra who is in jail, shall be released forthwith on probation, on his furnishing personal and surety bonds. And, appellant Madanlal who is already on bail, shall remain released on probation, if he furnishes his personal and surety bonds as directed above. Each of the appellants is, however, is fined with Rs. 500/-, for this offence. One month's time is granted to deposit the fine. If the fine is not deposited by the appellants, they each shall undergo 1 month's RI. *******