R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/12/1985 of J. M. F. C. Alot District Ratlam passed in Criminal Case No. 227/81 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for committing the breach of the distribution and control order of the sugar by illegally selling the sugar received from the Food Corporation under orders of the authorities. ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case is that accused-respondent was working as a dealer of sugar for Gram Panchayat Dharola Tahisl Alot. As a matter of conditions of licence and the practice the accused was required to take permit of the sugar and thereafter was required to take delivery from the Food Corporation. It was his duty to distribute the sugar as per the orders of the authorities on a fixed rate. It is alleged that this accused obtained 30 bags of sugar on 18-8-1980 and without distributing it to the consumers of the Panchayat sold it in the black-market. This incident has taken place in between 18-8-1980 to 26-8-1980. The matter was reported to the authorities. It was enquired into and thereafter a complaint was filed to the Police who further investigated the matter and filed challan against the accused. ( 3 ) THE challan was filed against the present accused-respondent and one Panchamlal who was discharged by the trial Court. ( 4 ) ACCUSED abjured the guilt and pleaded that he was working as a servant of Panchamlal who was the dealer of the commodity. ( 5 ) LEARNED Magistrate after trial has acquitted the accused on the ground that the fact of the dealership of the accused has not been proved in the case. Hence this appeal. ( 6 ) IN the memo of appeal and during the course of arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the fact of licence and dealership (Ex. P/43) has been proved by P. W. 24 J. C. Sharma. It has further been submitted that the actual delivery of sugar was obtained by the accused himself vide Ex. P42 and the same has been proved by Shri R. S. Arya (PW 23 ). P/43) has been proved by P. W. 24 J. C. Sharma. It has further been submitted that the actual delivery of sugar was obtained by the accused himself vide Ex. P42 and the same has been proved by Shri R. S. Arya (PW 23 ). ( 7 ) AS against it learned counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that Panchamlal was the real dealer and owner of the sugar. He has invested the money and was carrying on the business through accused respondent. ( 8 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel is that the incident has taken place somewhere in the year 1980. The accused has been suffering from tuberculosis and, therefore, a lenient view for punishment in the matter be taken. ( 9 ) THE prosecution has examined Nathugir (PW 1), Shantilal (PW 2), Narendrasingh (PW 3), Balram (PW 4), Pursingh (PW 5), Bherusing (PW 6), Bhanwarshing (PW 7), Devaji (PW 8), Gangaram (PW 9), Ganpat (PW 10), Rugnathsingh (PW 11), Shankarlal (PW 12), Fatehsingh (PW 13), Sardarsingh (PW 14), Nathu (PW 15), Bapusingh (PW 16) Kanhaiyalal (PW 17), Arjunsingh (PW 18), Badrilal (PW 19), Mohanlal (PW 20), Malang (PW 21), Rajendrashing Ranwat (PW 22), R. S. Arya (PW. 23), J. C. Sharma (PW 24) in support of its contention. ( 10 ) ON perusal of Ex. P/43 and the statement of P. W. 24 J. C. Sharma it is evident that the licence for the distribution of sugar was given to accused. Learned Trial Magistrate has disbelieved this fact only on the ground that he has not been identified with all certainty that the accused is the same man who was given the licence. ( 11 ) SHRI J. C. Sharma (PW 24) further stands corroborated from the document Ex. P42 and the statement of PW 23 R. S. Arya. Ex. P/42 shows the delivery of 30 bags of sugar was given to Chhaganlal s/o Ramlal (Present accused-respondent ). PW 23, R. S. Arya has very clearly stated that the accused Chhaganlal came to him along with the permit of 30 bags of sugar and the same was delivered to him. P. W. 3 Narendrasingh has also stated that the accused was distributing the sugar in the Panchayat and the room for keeping the sugar was also taken in the name of Chhaganlal. This goes to show that he was dealing with sugar. P. W. 3 Narendrasingh has also stated that the accused was distributing the sugar in the Panchayat and the room for keeping the sugar was also taken in the name of Chhaganlal. This goes to show that he was dealing with sugar. Thus, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the dealer and he took delivery of the sugar for distribution from the Food Corporation under permits issued by the Food Officer. ( 12 ) FOOD Inspector Balram (PW 4) has further stated that notice for production of the records of distribution was given to Chhaganlal vide Ex. P 10 but he failed to produce any record of distribution. This goes to prove that the distribution of sugar was not made as per the conditions of the licence. ( 13 ) P. W. 1 Nathugir (PW 1) and Balram (PW 4) the Food Inspector, have further proved the fact of search of place used for the stock of the sugar. No stock was found in that room. P. W. 5 Purshingh and P. W. 6 Bherusingh have stated that they could not get the sugar for the month of August, 1980. ( 14 ) FROM the statement of P. W. 11 Rugnathsing and P. W. 12 Shankarlal it appears as if Panchamlal was also either assisting or co-operating the accused-respondent in the matters of purchase and distribution of sugar. It is quite possible that he may have been working behind the curtain. It is also possible that he may have invested the money. But the accused-respondent being the dealer of the sugar it was his responsibility to distribute the sugar as per the conditions of the licence and the directions of the Food Authorities. The finding of the trial Court in this respect appears to be perverse and in the opinion of this Court it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the dealer of the sugar. He took the delivery of 30 bags of sugar for distribution and the same was not distributed. He failed to maintain the record of the distribution and did not produce any document or the register showing the distribution of the sugar. Thus, he has committed the breach of the licence and for that reason he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (d) read with Section 7 of the Act. He failed to maintain the record of the distribution and did not produce any document or the register showing the distribution of the sugar. Thus, he has committed the breach of the licence and for that reason he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (d) read with Section 7 of the Act. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent accused has submitted that the real culprit was Panchamlal as he was working through the present accused-respondent and, therefore, this accused-respondent cannot be made liable for the offence. ( 16 ) I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel because the actual work of dealership was entrusted to the accused respondent and the sugar was delivered to him under the licence. He was required to distribute the sugar to the consumers and to keep the record thereof. Even if Panchamlal was working behind the curtain or controlling the business that will not exonerate the accused-respondent from the offence alleged. ( 17 ) NOW so far as the sentence is concerned, the law provides for a minimum sentence and the same has been provided to prevent black-marketing of essential commodities and therefore, in such cases a very lenient view in the matter of punishment will not be in the interest of public at large. However, since the accused-respondent is reported to have been suffering from some ailment it would not be proper to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment. ( 18 ) AS a result this appeal succeeds. The acquittal of the accused-respondent for the offence alleged is set aside and he is convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further imprisonment for three months. The accused is on bail. He is directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Alot on 22-2-1993 for undergoing the sentence. Appeal allowed. .