S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) CONVICT is the appellant against his conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) PROSECUTION report was submitted against the appellant alleging contravention of clause 3 (1) of the Orissa Food-Grains Dealer Licensing Order, 1964 of the which attracts punishment for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 11-] 1-1982 at about 10 A. M. when P. W. 1 visited the godown of the appellant, he found 28 quintals 80 K. Gs. of Raggi, 6 quintals 30 K. Gs of Suah, 70 quintals of broken rice and 7 quintals of Jhudanga in the godown of the accused. Accordingly, the same being beyond the permissible limit of Food grains which a person can possess, accused was prosecuted since he had no licence for storing the same. ( 4 ) DEFENCE of the accused that the godown belongs to the firm consisting of his father and grandfather as partners which has licence for food grams. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION examined 4 witnesses and exhibited the weighment chart and statements written by P. Ws. 3 and 4 amongst other documents. Appellant examined one witness and exhibited the copy of the licence granted to the firm, sale deed executed by Sri Jaganathan in favour of So. Jagayya and copy of the Stay order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Korapul. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the said materials, learned Special Judge convicted the accused against which this appeal has been filed. ( 7 ) STAMP Reporter raised an objection that Special Judge being a Sessions Judge, appeal shall not lie against the conviction for three months. This question was directed to be decided at the time of hearing. It is true that under Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no appeal lies against conviction for an offence by the Sessions Judge for a period of three months or less. However, in the present case, although the Presiding Officer holds the power of (Sessions Judge, he tried the accused as the Special Judge in exercise a power of Judicial Magistrate First Class as provided under Section 12ab of the Act. In that view of the matter, even if the Special Judge holds the power of Sessions Judge, appeal lies to the High Court. In that view of the matter, even if the Special Judge holds the power of Sessions Judge, appeal lies to the High Court. This appeal is accordingly, maintainable and submission of Mr. Palit has force. ( 8 ) MR. Palit submitted that Trial Court ought to have held that the goods belong to the firm consisting of his father and grand-father. For cogent reasons, learned Special Judge had believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that food-grains belong to the accused. Mr. Palit drew my attention to statement of P. W. 4 that the godown in which the food-grains were found is known as Jagayya Godown and father of the ace used had gone to Rayagada to bring the truck to lift the stock. According to Mr. Palit, this would clearly indicate that the food-grains belong to the firm. However, P. W. 4 in his earlier statement in Ext. 6 had clearly stated that the godown belongs to the accused. In the examination-in-chief, he does not specifically state that the godown which is known as Jagayya godown belongs to the partnership firm. In such circumstances, when the accused was in possession of the godown and was in control of the food grains, he shall be deemed to have stored to same without licence. Once accused stores food-grains without licence, he is guilty of the offence. ( 9 ) MR. Palit submitted that the prosecution is had since it was initiated on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Supplies. It is now settled by the Division Bench in the decision reported in M. Surya Rao v. State of Orissa, that prosecution on the basis of report of a public servant is maintainable. Accordingly, there is no force in contention of Mr. Palit. ( 10 ) COMING to the question of sentence, I find that learned Special Judge has sentenced the accused for three months rigorous imprisonment. Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) provides that in respect of such offences, the minimum sentence is three months. Court may, if adequate and special reasons are inserted in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months. Offence in this case was committed on 11-11-1982. Eight years are now going to expire from the date of commission of the offence. Court may, if adequate and special reasons are inserted in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months. Offence in this case was committed on 11-11-1982. Eight years are now going to expire from the date of commission of the offence. There is no material that accused has committed any other offence either earlier or subsequent to this occurrence. It is true that storing good-grains more than the permissible limit is anti social in nature. Normally, a person convicted should be imprisoned as is intended in the Statute. It is never the intention of legislature that there should be delay in finalisation of proceeding under penal statute. This is also a factor to be taken into consideration while imposing sentence. Eight years after to send a person guilty of an offence like the present would have no effect on the society to prevent others from committing the same offence. I am conscious that leniency in punishment may have the effect of encouraging others to make attempt to delay the trial to have sympathy as in this case. I may only observe that, in such matters, Presiding Officers and inspecting authorities ought to take care that within a short time the trial and appeal if any, are completed. Some procedural delays like preparation of paper book should be avoided. It is to be remembered that procedures are never intended to defeat the object. When a Sessions Judge can effectively hear an appeal without a paper book by referring to the records, 1 am not able to appreciate why a Single Judge of High Court who is to hear an appeal like this would require preparation of paper book. ( 11 ) IN the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am inclined to hold that imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 5,000/- shall be adequate. In case, fine is not paid within two months, appellant shall undergo sentence of three months in default and the fine amount shall be realised on distress. Food grains seized shall be confiscated to the State. ( 12 ) IN the result, appeal is dismissed, subject to the modification of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.