JUDGMENT 1. 1. Appellant-Guljar Singh has filed this appeal under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 18.10.1995 passed by Shri O.P. Bishnoi, learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Cr. Case No. 6/90 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1988 and sentenced him to 6 months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.1990 the accused was found transporting 26 empty gas cylinders in his vehicle No. RPB- 44. The Dy. S.P., Sagwada tried to intercept the journey of the above vehicle but the accused defined above attempt of the Dy. S.P. and drove away the vehicle. He was chased and the vehicle was caught at village Handliya. The accused was found in possession of the above gas cylinders, without any authority or permission of the relevant authority. The cylinders were seized by seizure memo Ex. 3, the accused was arrested and on the report of the Dy. S.P. a case was registered for the aforesaid offence. 3. After investigation challan was filed. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced witnesses. The accused in his statements Under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he was found transporting the above cylinders in his vehicle but pleaded defence that the consumers of the above cylinders had authorised him to take the above cylinders for re-filling. One Ganpat Singh was also produced as defence witness. Certain documents purporting to the declarations by certain alleged consumers were also filed in defence evidence. 4. It may be stated that the incident taken place on 25.10.1990 while the declarations filed in defence evidence by alleged consumers were executed on 27.10.1990. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the defence evidence and found the accused guilty and passed the above order of sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accused produced declarations and authority-letters of the consumers who were owners of the above gas cylinders. They authorised the accused-appellant to transport the above cylinders for the purpose of re-filling. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accused produced declarations and authority-letters of the consumers who were owners of the above gas cylinders. They authorised the accused-appellant to transport the above cylinders for the purpose of re-filling. The accused-appellant has, therefore, not contravened any condition of the Order of 1988. In the alternative, he submitted that it was a technical offence, not involving transportation of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders filled with the liquefied petroleum gas. He further submitted that the accused appellant has been in jail for 9 days and he may be released on the period already undergone. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that case against the accused appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The defence evidence produced by the accused is an after-thought and not reliable, he also submitted that it is an offence under Essential Commodities Act and the punishment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be reasonable. 7. As regard conviction of the appellant it may be stated that there is no dispute about the fact that the accused-appellant was transporting the above 26 empty gas cylinders in his vehicle. The accused has himself admitted this fact in his statement Under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code The evidence produced by the accused is not reliable. The authority-letters produced by the accused are dated 27.10.1990, after the date of the incident. Such documents can be prepared at any stage by way of connivance or otherwise. If the consumers really authorised the appellant to take the above cylinders on their behalf, they would have and ought to have executed the authority letters prior to date of incident. The defence evidence is therefore, failed and does not inspite any confidence. Learned Sessions Judge has correctly convicted the accused appellant. 8. As regards sentence, it may be stated that he accused appellant has contravened condition No. 6 of the Order of 1988, which is more or less technical one. He has not misused the liquified petroleum gas as the cylinders were found empty. In these circumstances a sentence for less than 3 months imprisonment can be awarded. The accused-appellant has been in jail for 9 days. He has not misused the liquified petroleum gas as the cylinders were found empty. In these circumstances a sentence for less than 3 months imprisonment can be awarded. The accused-appellant has been in jail for 9 days. In the circumstances, ends of justice will be met if he is let off on the period already undergone though fine may be raised. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused appellant is maintained but he is sentenced to the period already undergone. The fine is raised from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 5000/-. The sentence about default of payment of fine will remain the same. The accused appellant is given two months' time to deposit the fine. Appeal Partially Allowed. *******