JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal from the order of conviction and sentence dated 5th of August, 1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore convicting the appellant u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more. 2. The appellant along with three others who have been described in the judgment of the trial Court as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stood trial u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. On conclusion of trial, the appellant has alone been convicted and sentenced but the other three have been acquitted of the charge. 3. According to prosecution, on 4.10.1985, the supply staff along with Executive Magistrate visited the Mill premises and godown of M/s. A.S. Arbi, a Partnership Firm of which, the prosecution alleges, the accused persons are the Partners. On inspection, the supply staff found discrepancies in the book-balance and actual stock of coarse rice, paddy and niger oilr On the basis of written report of the Inspector of Supplies, to the Nowrangpur Police-station, a case was registered and investigation started. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant alone. Later on, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the three other accused persons as well. 4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined four witnesses, whereas the defence has examined eight witnesses. According to the defence there was no discrepancy at all the as the rice shown as excess in stock belonged to three persons whom the accused produced as O.Ws.5, 6 and 7 during trial. Likewise, the excess stock of paddy from inside the Mill premises belonged to two persons whom the defence produced as D.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. In regard to discrepancy in the book-balance and actual stock of niger oil, the defence version is that the Mill was running while the raid was conducted in the Mill and excess stock of niger oil is the production of that mill on that day and the production was required to be entered in the register at the end of the day as the closing balance: 5. According to the appellant, the judgment of the lower Court is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It has been alleged that the Squad party consisted of all official witnesses and not a single outsider was associated with the raid so as to concoct a false case against the appellant. It is submitted that the trial Judge was wrong in disbelieving the defence witnesses and came to an erroneous finding relying solely upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses. According to the appellant, 36 tins of Edible Oil alleged to be in excess represents the yield of the Milling of niger seeds on 4.10.1985 and this production was required to be entered in the register at the end of the day. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Special Judge adopted different stands for prosecution case and overlooked infirmities in the prosecution evidence and subjected the defence evidence to meticulous scrutiny and rejected the defence evidence on untenable grounds. It is further submitted that the trial Judge ought to have extended the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State. 7. It is admitted that the present appellant along with three others stood trial before the learned Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore but the appellant only was convicted of the offence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C.Act and the rest were acquitted. It is not disputed that M/s, A.S.Arbi was running its business under the name and style of Bulbul Rice Mill which is a licensee under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (for short,. 'Order. 1965') and under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers' (Licensing) Order, 1977 (for short, 'Order 1977'). It is not disputed that the appellant was the Managing Partner of that Firm and he has been looking after that buisness. On 4.10.1985, PWs. 1, 2 and 3 checked the books of accounts and made a physical verification of stock as on 4.10.1985 and noticed the discrepancies between the book balance and actual stock in regard to rice and paddy. They noticed further that 36 tins of niger oil were found in excess of that which is reflected in the books of accounts. 1, 2 and 3 checked the books of accounts and made a physical verification of stock as on 4.10.1985 and noticed the discrepancies between the book balance and actual stock in regard to rice and paddy. They noticed further that 36 tins of niger oil were found in excess of that which is reflected in the books of accounts. It appears that the learned Special Judge took note of the statement of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and several documents such as, books of accounts, stock register etc. to observe that there was in effect discrepancies in regard to rice, paddy and niger oil. The prosecution witnesses have stated that they remained in the Mil premises till about 6 p.m. They denied the suggestion that by the time of their arrival the oil mill was running. They were very much positive that both the Mills were not running during their visit. P.W. 3 states that all the 480 tins of oil were in properly packed and sealed condition and he has denied the suggestion to the effect that the 36 tins which were seized were in upnacked condition. He admits that the Mill driver was present at the time of checking. It has been elicted from P.W. 3 during cross-examination that on the day of checking the milling Register (Ext. 12) was not available in the office of the present appellant. The appellant did not tell that the excess rice in stock found in the Mill premises belonged to customers. He noticed the presence of the appellant inside the Mill premises during checking. During trial the defence has sought to prove by bringing in a number of witnesses to show that the excess stock of rice and paddy actually belonged to outsiders but that was not the case of the defence during the raid conducted by the supply staff. It appears that the learned Special Judge found the prosecution witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable. Accordingly, he did not hesitate to place reliance upon their testimony in arriving at his conclusion. 8. It appears that the learned Special Judge was not unmindful of the legal position to the effect that the defence evidence should be scrutinised as critically as the evidence from the side of the prosecution. Accordingly, he did not hesitate to place reliance upon their testimony in arriving at his conclusion. 8. It appears that the learned Special Judge was not unmindful of the legal position to the effect that the defence evidence should be scrutinised as critically as the evidence from the side of the prosecution. He observed that the defence would succeed if it raises a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case, through its version. It appears that the learned Special Judge had kept those two settled legal principles in mind before approaching to analyse the evidence adduced by the defence. It further appears that the evidence of the defence witnesses was scrutinised and discussed thread-bare. D.W. 1 has claimed to be an official witness. Learned Special Judge could not pursuade himself to believe this witness on the ground that he seemed to be a puppet in the hands of a businessman. This witness was called upon to produce some documents in Court. But he handed over them to the defence counsel without any order from the Court. The learned Judge observed that this conduct of D.W. 1 sufficiently demonstrated that virtually he was dancing to the tune of the present appellant. According to the learned Judge his evidence is neither here nor there and as such, his evidence was totally discarded by the learned trial Judge. The learned Special Judge then proceeded to examine the evidence adduced by the defence regarding discrepancies in the stock of rice and paddy. On a reference to the documents seized during the raid and marked as Exhibits in this case, he held unequivocally that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge against the present appellant. The evidence of defence witnesses and that of prosecution witnesses have been thoroughly scrutinised by me. I find that the learned Special Judge has come to a correct conclusion and no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence is noticed. It appears that the defence has tried to build up a case which has fallen through. The learned Judge has dealt with the matter very elaborately and I cannot come to a different conclusion. 9. It is admitted that the appellant was a holder of licence both under Order 1965 (Ext. 4) and under Order, 1977 (Ext. 6). It appears that the defence has tried to build up a case which has fallen through. The learned Judge has dealt with the matter very elaborately and I cannot come to a different conclusion. 9. It is admitted that the appellant was a holder of licence both under Order 1965 (Ext. 4) and under Order, 1977 (Ext. 6). These orders clearly stipulate that the Dealer has to maintain registers of daily accounts of rice and paddy showing therein the opening stock, quantities received during the day and the source thereof and the quantities delivered and the destination thereof and the closing balance. The learned Judge observed quite rightly that there has been contravention of the provisions of the rders and as such the appellant was found guilty of the offence u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C.Act. As indicated earlier, I am in total agreement with the finding of the learned Special Judge and find no hesitation to uphold the order of conviction and sentence passed by him in this case. 10. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant on the ground that he has no previous criminal antecedent and he is the first offender. According to him, the Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. Therefore, he submits that it is expedient in the interest of justice to release the appellant on probation of good conduct especially keeping in view the fact that the incident happened in the year 1985 and the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed in August, 1987 and the appeal remained pending in this Court for the last eleven years. In this connection, some undisputed facts may be noticed. The incident happened on 4.10.1985 when the supply staff raided the Mill premises and godown of the appellant and found discrepancy in the stock of rice, paddy and Niger Oil between the book balance and the actual stock. The appellant is holder of licence under both the Order 1965 and Order 1977. It is not disputed that it is a technical violation of the conditions of licence. The appellant is holder of licence under both the Order 1965 and Order 1977. It is not disputed that it is a technical violation of the conditions of licence. The judgment of the learned Special Judge was pronounced on 5th of August, 1987. Thereafter, the appellant has come to this Court in appeal. The appeal is pending before this Court ever since. It is not disputed that this is the first offence of the appellant which appears to be a technical one. He has no previous criminal antecedent. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I think the ends of justice would be properly met if the appellant is extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released after due admonition which I hereby do. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, while sustaining the order of conviction, I release the appellant u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.