JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Ramdas has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening Clause 3(a)(i) of the M.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months on three counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. 2. The prosecution case was that accused Ramdas was dealer in foodgrains. On 4.7.1983 he was in possession of 321 Quintals of wheat. Similarly on 21.4.1983 he was in possession of 263 Quintals of wheat and on 1.5.1983 he was in possession of 285.5 Quintals of wheat. The maximum quantity which he could possess on one day was 250 Quintals. 3. The trial Court held that from the stock registers and the evidence of Food Inspector K.B. Khare (P.W.2), it is proved that the accused was in possession of the wheat exceeding the maximum quantity which he could legally possess without having licence. He had no licence. Me had applied for permission to have stock of wheat exceeding 250 Quintals but no such permission could be granted. It was necessary for him to obtain a regular licence before dealing in quantity exceeding 250 Quintals. The appellant has rightly been held guilty for contravention of Clause 3 (a) (i) of the M.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. His conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is well merited. 4. Coming to the question of sentence it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the offence was committed in 1983 and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside. The trial Court has also observed : "Technically offence is made out against the accused though the circumstances are indicative of his bonafide intention". This observation is relied upon on behalf of the appellant for reducing the sentence. A number of judgments of this Court have been relied upon in which dealing with the question of sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the sentence has been reduced to less than minimum. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for the proposition of law it decides and not what was done in that particular case. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.R. Rangadamappa AIR 1982 SC 1492 has laid down the law as under- We are unable to understand why the High Court reduced the sentence. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for the proposition of law it decides and not what was done in that particular case. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.R. Rangadamappa AIR 1982 SC 1492 has laid down the law as under- We are unable to understand why the High Court reduced the sentence. The statute prescribes a minimum sentence. It does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court with any discretion to award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any special circumstances. The learned Judge has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is the statutory minimum. Having noticed that the statute prescribes a minimum sentence for the offence, the High Court has understandably reduced the sentece of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible. The High Court was clearly in error in doing so. We think we have said enough to correct the error. 5. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides- (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 (a) he shall be punishable- (i) in the case of an order made with reference to Cl. (h) or Cl. (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 6. The present case is covered by Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment cannot be less than three months. There was a proviso to this Sub-section which enabled the Court to impose a sentence less than the minimum but that proviso has been omitted by Act No. 18 of 1981 from 1st September, 1982. The power of the Court to show judicial benevolence has been taken away by a conscious step taken by the Parliament. The minimum sentence prescribed by law cannot be reduced. 7. The sentences, however, can be ordered to run concurrently. It is directed that the sentence of three months' imprisonment for each of the three contraventions shall run concurrently. The appeal is allowed to that extent.