JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard both the Counsels in their respective appeals and also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment of conviction in which accused No. 1 who was the Secretary and accused No. 2 who was the Chairman of Burud Samaj Audyogik Sahakari Society Ltd., Islampur, were convicted under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Regulation, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as E.C. Act and Regulation, 1975 in short). 3. As per the charge framed against the accused appellants they had not complied and had contravened the provisions of section 18(2)(e), (g) of the Regulation 1975 and committed offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the E.C. Act. This non-compliance included not maintaining on the premises of the shop true and proper accounts with regard to the receipt, distribution and sale of scheduled commodities together with all the supporting vouchers and other papers particularly the prescribed books and registers, not displaying the name in Marathi showing its authorised number, name and address of shop, retail prices of scheduled commodities, time of working etc. and not obeying and carrying out instructions given by the Collector from time to time. These illegalities also included finding of excess sugar by 43.810 kgs. palmolive oil found excess by 14.5 kgs. and 5 kgs. of rice were found less in stock. 4. Criminal prosecution against both the accused appellants was initiated at the instance of the Food Inspector Vijay Panduranga Dhabale, who visited the fair price shop on 6-1-1986 and found the aforesaid infirmities. He recorded the statement of accused No. 1 the Secretary on that day and since accused No. 2 the Chairman was not present, his statement was recorded on 8-1-1986 or 9-1-1986. 5. To all the charges framed against them by the Court and to all the illegalities, irregularities pointed out by P.W. 1 during his inspection and visit, the defence of the accused-appellants was that they shifted the shop to Vithal Mandir premises from its original place on 31-12-1985 and therefore within six days they could not update the record and consequently no serious illegalities are committed by them. So far as non-production of record before the Food Inspector is concerned, accused No. 1 contended that for security and safety reasons, the record was kept with the Chairman-the accused No. 2 and as the Chairman was out of station on 6-1-1986, the same could not be produced before the Food Inspector. 6. This defence of the accused was rejected by the trial Court, on the ground that it is inconsistent and contradictory to the statement of the accused No. 1 recorded by the Food Inspector on 6-1-1986 wherein the accused No. 1 had admitted that the shop was shifted to Vithal Mandir premises on 8-12-1985 itself. The trial Court rightly held that if the shop was shifted on 8-12-1986, then the defence raised that it was shifted on 31-12-1985 was obviously a false defence. 7. If a Food Inspector during his inspection found certain irregularities and illegalities on the part of the accused regarding maintenance of registers, maintenance of stock etc. then the burden shifts on the accused-appellants to prove that they had complied with the directions issued under the Regulation of 1975 by the Collector, from time to time. The explanation of the accused for inability to produce the record can be accepted because the shop was shifted to Vithal Mandir premises wherein there may not be any arrangement for safe keeping of the stock and register. However, there is absolutely no explanation from the accused appellants about finding of sugar excess by 43.810 kgs., palmolive oil excess by 14.500 kgs. and rice stock short by 5 kgs. It was contended by Counsel for the accused that the Food Inspector did not give an opportunity to the accused No. 1 to complete the accounting for the day i.e. upto 6-1-1986 and if such an opportunity was given the accused No. 1 could have shown necessary record regarding the safe of the stock and balance tallying with the account, so furnished. I do not find any force in this submission because what was found by the Food Inspector P.W. 1 was that the sugar and palmolive oil were in excess and rice stock was less. Prima facie it means that whatever was shown as sold to different customers holding ration card or supply card was not actually sold to them and therefore the stock was found excess or short. Prima facie it means that whatever was shown as sold to different customers holding ration card or supply card was not actually sold to them and therefore the stock was found excess or short. Of all the charges levelled against the accused, finding of excess stock and short stock are serious charges, for which there is no explanation at all from the accused. 8. It was contended by the Counsel for the accused No. 2 that he was merely a Chairman and not concerned with the day-to-day affairs in running the shop and therefore as contemplated by section 10 of the E.C. Act he should not be held guilty. 9. A perusal of section 10 of E.C. Act provides that if the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention. 10. It is pertinent to note that section 10 has not used the words responsible for the day to day affairs as is done in other statutes. What the section lays down is that the person in charge of the company for the conduct of the business. How it cannot be said that the Chairman of a society is not in charge of the conduct of the business of the society. Even otherwise the Regulation 18(2) lays down that every fair price shop shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission and omission of his partners, agents, servants and other persons who are allowed to work in the shop. Admittedly, accused No. 2 was Chairman of the society and he was Chairman since before 15 months of the date of the inspection. The registers were found with him, as produced by him on 9-1-1986 and keeping all the registers and production thereof, clearly shows that the Chairman was directly concerned with the running of fair price shop because accused No. 1 has tried to take shelter on the ground that for security reasons, the documents and registers were kept with the Chairman. It cannot therefore be said that the Chairman was not concerned with the running of the shop. 11. It cannot therefore be said that the Chairman was not concerned with the running of the shop. 11. A perusal of the judgment as well as the evidence on record shows that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the offences and therefore no interference is required in these appeals. So far as sentence is concerned, both the accused were sentenced to rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 200/- in default R.I. for 20 days for contravention of Clauses 18(2)(e), (f) (j) and to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default R.I. for 30 days for contravention of Clause 18(2)(g) of the Regulation 1975. It was also contended by the Counsel for the accused-appellants that this sentence should be reduced, and in the alternative fine may be imposed. Counsel for the accused appellants also contended that both the appellants were in prison for three days and that should be considered sufficient. 12. Section 7(2) of the E.C. Act lays down that for contravention of sub-section (ii) the punishment shall not be less than three months but the Court for adequate and special reasons impose a sentence of imprisonment for less than three months. It is clear that the trial Court has already shown leniency to the accused-appellants by imposing sentence of less than three months. It was also contended by the Counsel for the accused-appellants that because the period of nine years has elapsed, the sentence should be converted to a sentence of fine. 13. I am in disagreement with the submissions because the offences are under the E.C. Act and particularly regarding distribution of essential commodities finding of excess and less in quantity are serious things because it shows that sugar, palmolive oil and rice which was sold for poor and economy weaker section, was not sold but was actually shown as sold and the excess quantity could have been disposed of by the accused-appellants for higher price and for their personal gains. It cannot be therefore that this Court should let off the accused appellants on fine only, R.I. is a must for such cases. However, taking into consideration the period of nine years the sentence of one month is reduced to 15 days with fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for 7 days. It cannot be therefore that this Court should let off the accused appellants on fine only, R.I. is a must for such cases. However, taking into consideration the period of nine years the sentence of one month is reduced to 15 days with fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for 7 days. I , therefore, pass the following order: ORDER Both the appeals are partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the accused appellants under Clause 18(2)(e), (f) (j) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Regulation, 1975 is maintained, so also the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Conviction of the accused appellants under section 18(2)(g) is also maintained. Accused appellants to undergo R.I. for 15 days with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of fine R.I. for 7 days. Rest of the order of the trial Court remains as it is. Appeals partly allowed. -----