(1) THIS appeal was Filed against the order of the High court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1993 dated 25/1/1993, confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for short the Act and sentence of three months Rl and fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one week imposed by the Special Judge, Mehsana. (2) THE charge against the appellant was that he violated Section 2 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing. Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, for short "the Order and also violated the conditions of the agreement under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (3) THE contention of Mr Dave, learned counsel for the appellant is that the case falls under Section 7(l)(a)(i) of the Act and as a result the rigour to impose minimum sentence does not arise and the court below and the High court committed a grave error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Act. We find no force in the contention. Section 3(2 (h) & (i) read thus : "3. (2(h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting of the aforesaid matters: (i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of. or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order." (4) A reading thereof clearly indicates that if the accused contravenes the offence of not furnishing the information or statistics in in the regulation when he/she is required to do or prohibition thereof is regulated; or when he/she engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any essential commodity and was required to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to the business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the Order and if he contravenes such an order or regulation then the case would fall under Section 7(l)(a)(i) of the Act. (5) THE charge was of sale in violation of the aforesaid order for which he is convicted. It does not fall under either of the two quoted clauses. (5) THE charge was of sale in violation of the aforesaid order for which he is convicted. It does not fall under either of the two quoted clauses. The necessary fact is that the order was obviously issued under Section 3(3 of the Act. In this situation the trial court was left with no option but to convict the appellant for offence under Section 7(l)(a)(ii) which provides that "in the case of any other order with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine". This mandatory imprisonment was imposed to maintain supply and distribution of the essential commodities (regulation or distribution thereof). In this situation we do not find any substance in the contention and the imposition of the minimum sentence cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. (6) IT is next contended that this Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution has plenary power to reduce the sentence. We are afraid that we cannot ignore the statutory object and reduce the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. Undoubtedly under Article 142 the Supreme Court has the power untrammelled by any statutory limits but when penal offences have been prescribed for violation of statutory regulations for production, equitable supply and distribution of essential commodities at fair prices, it was done in the social interest which this Court would keep in mind while exercising power under Article 142 and respect the legislative policy to impose minimum sentence. Amendment to the Act was made to stamp out the statutory violations with impunity. Thus we find that it is not a fit case warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.