KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants-accused have been convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening the provisions of Clauses 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts, Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1981 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S. I. for two months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are managing partners of a provision shop by name M/s. Reshmi Brothers, Kirani and General Merchants (Accused No. 1) at Bailhongal and were doing business in the sale of commodities like sugar, kerosene, pulses, edible oil. They had a valid licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986. ( 3 ) THE PSI, Food Cell, Belgaum on 4-1-1990 inspected the premises. It was found that the accused had not entered the purchase of 25 bags of sugar purchased from different parties in the stock register from 24-12-1989 and 1-1-1990. The balance of stock of sugar as on 22-12-1989 was 20-52 quintals and including 25 quintals of sugar purchased, come to 42. 62 quintals and that deducting 5. 25 quintals sugar sold during the relevant time, the balance stock ought to have been 40. 27 quintals but it was shown as 20. 82 quintals. It was noticed that there was shortage of stock by 19. 45 quintals and thereby the accused contravened the provisions of Clauses 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts, Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1981. ( 4 ) WHEN the Food Cell Inspector (P. W. 2) noticed on inspection that the entries in respect of sugar business were made till 23-12-1989 and the balance as on that day was 20. 52 quintals. The entries from 23-12-1989 to 4-2-1990 were not made therein. P. W. 2 noticed that the accused had purchased 5 quintals of sugar on 24-12-1989 under Exs. P-2 and P-3, 10 quintals on 25-12-1989 under Exs. P-7 and again 10 quintals on 1-1-1990 under Exs. P-8 to P-10 from different parties. This was not entered in the stock register. On physical verification of the stock, P. W. 2 found that there was 20. 82 quintals of sugar. P-2 and P-3, 10 quintals on 25-12-1989 under Exs. P-7 and again 10 quintals on 1-1-1990 under Exs. P-8 to P-10 from different parties. This was not entered in the stock register. On physical verification of the stock, P. W. 2 found that there was 20. 82 quintals of sugar. He checked the bill book Ex. P-11. The original bills from 217 onwards were not used for sugar business. The P. W. 2 PSI seized Exs. P-1 to P-11 and the actual stock of sugar under panchanama Ex. P-12 in the presence of P. W. 1 and another. Then he went to Bailhongal police station along with the seized property, filed his complaint Ex. P-14 with the P. S. I. Bailhongal. ( 5 ) THE PSI, Bailhongal (P. W. 3) on receipt of the complaint Ex. P-14 registered the case and submitted F. I. R. Ex. P-15 along with the original complaint Ex. P-14 to Court. On the same day, he arrested A-2 at about 2. 45 p. m. and obtained J. C. remand, subjected the property produced by P. W. 2 to P. F. and obtained necessary permission to retain them pending investigation. P. W. 3 produced the seized sugar before the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal with his report for taking action under Section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act. On 6-1-1990 he examined and recorded statements of P. W. 1 and C. Ws. 4 to 9 and got produced Ex. P-16 the copy of partnership deed from C. W. 8. On 6-3-1990 at about 9 a. m. he arrested A-3 and produced him before the Court and obtained J. C. remand, as he was also responsible for management of the business of A-1 firm. On the same day, he collected C. T. S. extract Ex. P-17 of the shop of the accused and the xerox copy of licence Ex. P-13. After completing the investigation P. W. 3 submitted the charge-sheet on 15-3-1990 against the firm A-1 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 the partners for violation of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. ( 6 ) THE case of the defence was that P. W. 2, PSI had gone to their shop on 22-12-1989 and took away the register. Thereafter, on 4-1-1990 he raided the shop and therefore the accused could not write the register. 2 and 3 the partners for violation of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. ( 6 ) THE case of the defence was that P. W. 2, PSI had gone to their shop on 22-12-1989 and took away the register. Thereafter, on 4-1-1990 he raided the shop and therefore the accused could not write the register. P. W. 2 did not take into account the credit sales entries and if the credit sales were taken into account there is no discrepancy in the stock position. ( 7 ) THE trial Court held that the defence theory was self-serving and invented for the purpose of the case. There is nothing on record to show that the stock register was taken away on 23-12-1989 and brought back only for the purpose of the case on 4-1-1990. ( 8 ) IT was further submitted by the defence that there are five partners and only A-2 and A-3 were prosecuted. This submission was also rightly rejected by the Trial Court holding that since A-2 and A-3 are brothers and the shop was under the management of A-2 and A-3 and therefore this submission is also rejected. ( 9 ) A perusal of the evidence of D. W. 1 theaccountant clearly indicates that D. W. 1 has admitted the purchase of sugar as evidenced by Exs. P-2 to P-10. ( 10 ) I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 11 ) ELABORATE arguments were advanced by Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellants-accused. He submitted that the accused come from a respectable family and are the only earning members of the family. It was further submitted that the accused have had no bad antecedents and have no previous conviction. ( 12 ) THE learned PP in the Trial Court agreed that the accused deserved leniency. The Trial Court also accepted that the accused deserved leniency. ( 13 ) IN this case, the accused were charged under Clauses 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 and Clause 6 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts, Disply of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1981 punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7 provides for a minimum sentence of three months. Section 7 provides for a minimum sentence of three months. The proviso to Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) states that Court may for adequate and for special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than three months. ( 14 ) IN this case the accused No. 2 was arrested on 4-1-1990 and accused No. 3 was arrested on 6-3-1990. They were produced in Court and later enlarged on bail. The occurrence took place on 4-1-1990. The matter relates to the fact that the accused did not enter the correct purchase of sugar. The balance of sugar in the stock book ought to have been 40. 27 quintals. But it was only 20. 82 quintals. There was a shortage in the stock register of 19. 45 quintals. The stock books were not kept upto date. This is the gamut of the charge. ( 15 ) EVEN in the Trial Court it was argued and accepted by the Trial Court that the accused come from a respectable family and they are the bread winners of the joint family. It was also accepted by the Trial Court that the accused had no bad antecedents or previous convictions under the Essential Commodities Act. As stated earlier the occurrence took place as far back as on 4-1-1990. It is almost ten years. The accused are young persons. It also cannot be denied that the offence committed by the accused has not caused any substantial harm to the general public. The matter related to dereliction of duty in keeping the stock register upto date. The accused have suffered by being arrested and being brought before the Court. That in my view would be a sufficient sentence to meet the ends of justice. It would not be necessary to send the accused back to jail. The imposition of fine by the trial Court however shall stand confirmed. ( 16 ) THE period of arrest shall be treated as the period of sentence. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed except for the modification of the sentence. The bail bonds accordingly shall stand cancelled. In these circumstances, the accused shall not be sent back to prison as the period already undergone during investigation shall be treated as the period of sentence. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .