Judgment : 1. This appeal by the accused, challenges the conviction by the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Madras in S.T.C.No.46 of 1985 for an offence under Sec.10(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 read with Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the sentence of imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.100. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that on 14.2.1985, at No.35,Sasthiri Street,Appavoo Nagar, Saidapet,Madras in his business premises, he had in his possession three family cards bearing Nos.825531, 827410, and 827419 not belonging to him and had thereby committed the above offences. 3. The prosecution case is that P.W.6 inspected the above premises of the appellant on 14.2.1985 at 11.00 a.m. and found in the appellants shop the above three family cards, along with certain other articles. The family cards Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-4 did not belong to him and had not been issued to him. They were seized under Ex.P-6 Mahazar along with other articles with reference to which there was a separate case. The appellant was arrested, brought to the station and Ex.P-7, First Information Report was prepared registering the case in Crl.No.13 of 1985 for the above offences. The card-owners., viz., P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 were examined, the necessary sanction obtained and the complaint filed. 4. During trial on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. 5. The appellant, when questioned denied having committed any crime. He had no evidence to offer, oral or documentary. 6. The learned Magistrate, though P.Ws.l to 5, viz., the mahazar witnesses and the card-holders had turned hostile, accepted the evidence of P.W.6 regarding the seizure of Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-4 from the shop of the appellant and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed. 7. 6. The learned Magistrate, though P.Ws.l to 5, viz., the mahazar witnesses and the card-holders had turned hostile, accepted the evidence of P.W.6 regarding the seizure of Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-4 from the shop of the appellant and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed. 7. Thiru B.Thanikkachalam, learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that there was absolutely no material for the trial court to base a conviction and to hold that Ex.P-1,2 and 4 had been seized from the appellant, that in view of the fact that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who are the persons to whom the family cards had been issued had turned hostile and had stared that P.W.6, the Inspector had collected the above family cards from them stating that they were needed for verification, there was no material for the court to hold that the seizure of Exs.P-1,2 and 4 had been proved. On the legal issue, the learned counsel, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 564, urged that even if the entireprosecution case was true, there could be no conviction, since the prosecution could only be taken to have proved that Exs.P-1, 2 and 4 had been in the possession of the appellant and there was nothing to show that the appellant had retained them for the purpose of making any unlawful use of these cards to purchase scheduled commodities According to the learned counsel, possession by itself was not an offence and the prosecution had to prove that possession was with the intern ion of putting the family cards to an unlawful use. Regarding the conviction for the ’offence under Clause 10(b) of the Order, learned counsel urged that since the appellant had never been called upon to surrender Ex.P-1,2 and 4 either to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 or to any authority, the question of refusal to hand over would not arise and there could be no conviction under Clause 10(b) of the order. 8. 8. Meeting the above contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor, would submit that the evidence of P.W.6 was sufficient for a conviction, if it was found to be otherwise satisfactory and the card-holders turning hostile was quite understandable and that therefore, the trial court was not in error in holding that Exs.P-1,2 and 4 were found in the possession of the appellant. On the legal issue, the learned Public Prosecutor on would submit that a reading of the relevant orders would show, that nothing besides possession need be proved and the Order did not require that possession should be for any unlawful purpose and once possession was proved, it was for the accused to bring it, if possible, under the exception to Clause 10(a) of the Order. 9. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant. 10. As far as the actual seizure of Exs.P-1,2 and 4 from the appellant is concerned, no doubt the witnesses who were expected to speak to the seizure, viz., P.Ws.3 and 5 have turned hostile. P.W.3, though he would state that he did not witness any seizure, would still admit that he is a neighbour of the shop of the appellant and about 10 months prior to his giving evidence, there was a big crowd in the shop and that he went there, that the police were there and the appellant also was there and that the police obtained his signature and the signature of one Moorthy (P.W.5) in a paper and that Moorthy signed in English. He had denied knowledge of the seizure from the shop. Similarly P.W.5, though he has denied about the seizure has admitted that the signature Ex.P-5 in the mahazar, Ex.P-6 is his and that he used to sign in English. He has stated that he signed because the Inspector asked him to sign. The evidence of these witnesses, though they are hostile, need not be rejected in its entirely since it is settled law that courts can rely upon such portion of the evidence of a hostile witness, as is found to be acceptable. Both, P. Ws.3 and 5 would admit the visit of the Inspector to the shop of the appellant and a crowd being there, the appellant being there and the fact that they signed in a mahazar. Both, P. Ws.3 and 5 would admit the visit of the Inspector to the shop of the appellant and a crowd being there, the appellant being there and the fact that they signed in a mahazar. They admit their signature, but would say that they were not aware of any seizure and their signatures were obtained on blank paper. In the background of this evidence, we have the evidence of P.W.6 who speaks about the seizure of Exs.P-1, 2 and 4 from the shop of the appellant. Nothing has been elicited from P.W.6 to discredit his testimony. Suggestions have been put to P. Ws.3 and 5 that with a desire to shield the appellant they were denying the seizure. The evidence of P. Ws.3 and 5 together with the evidence of P.W.6 would clearly show that Exs.P-1,2 and 5 were in the shop of the appellant and the appellant was in possession of them. The finding of the learned Magistrate to that effect cannot be said to be erroneous. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the appellant was in possession of Ex.P-1,2 and 4. 11. The next question that arises is whether mere possession is an offence. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the above Order. Sec. 10 of the Order is as follows: “Return of family card by person in authorised possession:(a) No person shall have in his possession any family card not belonging to him. 11. The next question that arises is whether mere possession is an offence. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the above Order. Sec. 10 of the Order is as follows: “Return of family card by person in authorised possession:(a) No person shall have in his possession any family card not belonging to him. Exception:This clause does not extend to a servant found-in possession of a family card on behalf of the card-holder in the capacity of an employee and carrying the said card for the purpose of purchasing scheduled commodities on behalf of the card-holder, (b) Where person is in possession of a family card and such possession is not authorised by this Order, he shall forth with deliver the same to the person to whom it is issued or to the inspecting officer.” A reading of the above provision would show that mere possession of a card not belonging to him, is an offence under Clause 10(a) and the burden would then be on the accused to show that he comes under the exception to that clause by showing that he was in possession in his capacity as an employee of the card-holder and was carrying it, for the purpose of purchasing scheduled commodities on behalf of the card-holder. Clause 10(a) of the Order is not concerned with the object with which, possession of the family card belonging to someone else, is retained. Mere possession of a card not belonging to him and not coming under the exception is an offence under the above Order. We cannot read into this provision any ingredient, which is not mentioned in it and which we can say, has been impliedly excluded from it. 12. The decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, viz., Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 564 is renderedunder the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (23 of 1940), wherein Sec.27 of the Act prohibits manufacture for sale, selling and also stocking and exhibiting for sale in contravention of the provisions of that Act. Under those circumstances, the prosecution had to prove not only manufacture or stocking but, also that the manufacture or stocking or exhibiting was for sale or distribution. Under those circumstances, the prosecution had to prove not only manufacture or stocking but, also that the manufacture or stocking or exhibiting was for sale or distribution. Failure to prove that the manufacture, stocking or exhibiting was either for sale or distribution, would not attract the provision of Sec.27 of that Act and the prosecution would have to fail. Such is not the case in the present enactment, wherein a plain reading of the provision shows, that mere possession is an offence. 13. As far as Clause 10(b) of the Order is concerned, we find that there also the sub-clause does not require that there should first be a demand from the accused for delivering the family card to the card-holder or to the Inspecting Officer. It would appear as if a duty is cast on the accused, to forthwith deliver the family card to the person to whom it is issued or to the Inspecting Officer. The accused is not expected to wait and postpone delivery till a demand is made to him, either by the card-holder or by the Inspecting Officer. These duties are absolute and are intended to prevent abuse in the use of family cards, which would defeat the very purpose for which the Essential Commodities Act, and the various orders, issued both by the Centre and different States under the Act have been enacted. I, therefore, see no error in the conviction of the appellant both under Secs.10(a) and 10(b) of the Order and I confirm the conviction and sentence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant in the alternative urged that the appellant would be entitled to remission under the Orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.180, Home (Prison)I Department, dated 28.1.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.781, Home, P.R.C. Department, dated 11.4.1990. These Government Orders have been issued under Sec.432 of the Crl.P.C. Each Order gives a remission of six months imprisonment to convicted persons. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been enacted by Parliament in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction under Entry 33 in List III as amended by the III Amendment, 1959. The Orders issued thereunder are by the State, in view of the fact that the subject is in List No.III. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been enacted by Parliament in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction under Entry 33 in List III as amended by the III Amendment, 1959. The Orders issued thereunder are by the State, in view of the fact that the subject is in List No.III. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held in Commissioner, Gujarat v. Ahmedabad Rana Cast Association, A.I.R 1982 S.C. 32 that the legislative power of the State Legislature on this subject is not taken away. Under such circumstances, the Orders issued by the State Government under Sec.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be applicable to persons convicted under the Essential Commodities Act read with the orders issued by the State Government under the Act. The appellant would be entitled to a remission of the- full sentences imposed on him by the trial court. Since, the full sentence is remitted, it will be needless for the appellant to surrender to custody. The fine has already been paid. 15. With these observations about the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.