Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Dineshwar Prasad Sinha, Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gaya dated 25-5-1989 in G.R Case No. 1655 of 185. The appellant was convicted under Sec. 7, E.C. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, according to the report of Dhananjay Prasad Ambastha, Circle Officer, Chandauti P.S., Gaya, was to the effect that on 7-7-1985, the informant inspected the fair price shop of the accused-appellant and verified the actual stock position with respect to sugar and kerosene oil and compared it with the stock register and cash memos. He found that stock register was maintained only up to 2-7-1985 and it contained an entry of 4 quintals. He further verified Cash memos from which it was detected that up to 3-7-1985, 38 kgs. of sugar were sold. However, on physical verification, only 52 kgs. of sugar were found in stock whereas it should have been 3 quintals 62 kgs. In the same manner, the stock register of kerosene oil was maintained up to 2-7-1985 and it contained an entry of 200 litres on this date. 1be cash memos indicated no sale of kerosene oil and on stock verification only 35 litres of kerosene oil were found to be in stock. Six persons were interviewed by the informant who disclosed that they received no sugar or kerosene oil from the fair price shop of the appellant. The stock register, cash memos and stock of sugar and kerosene oil were all seized by the informant and made over to a person on zimmanama. After investigation, the accused was prosecuted and after trial he was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. 3. The accused-appellant denied the charge and alleged false implication. 4. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of evidence of six witnesses and the stock register and cash memos and written report which were exhibited in the lower Court. PW 6 was a formal witness who brought on record the written report of the informant (Ext. 6). PW 5 was another formal witness who brought on record the formal FIR (Ext. 5). PW 6 was a formal witness who brought on record the written report of the informant (Ext. 6). PW 5 was another formal witness who brought on record the formal FIR (Ext. 5). PW 4 was Circle Officer himself who supported the case as related in the written report (Ext. 6). PWs 1 and 2 were customers who denied to have received sugar or kerosene oil from the shop of the accused appellant. However. PW 1 stated at paragraph 6 of the judgment that earlier he had no ration-card and, therefore, he received no commodity from the accused. When his ration-card was-prepared, he was receiving commodities from the accused-appellant. PW 2 said at paragraph 3 that earlier he used to receive essential commodities from the shop of the accused-without ration-card. This was the general practice. Subsequently, when ration-cards were prepared, he was receiving commodities from the shop of the accused. 5. On the basis of the evidence on record, it was submitted before me that six persons were allegedly interviewed by the Circle Officer but only two were examined and they did not support any irregularity committed by the appellant. In this connection, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW 2 is apparent that commodities used to be supplied to the customers without ration-card earlier and subsequently when ration-cards were prepared the same was being supplied on cards. Be that as it may, stock register and cash memos clearly indicated that the accused had failed to make regular entries up to the date when the Circle Officer inspected his shop. Moreover, the actual stock position varied from the entries in the stock register and cash memos. So, there was clear irregularity, with respect to the maintenance of concerned registers and papers and this was discrepant with the actual stock position. This was a circumstance to indicate that the accused must have indulged in some kind of racket which remained unexplained by him. So he had of course committed an offence within the provision of Sec. 3 of the E.C. Act which was penal under Sec. 7 of the same Act. So in this connection the finding of the lower Court was not defective or suffered from any irregularity. 6. In the result. I do not find anything amiss in the finding of the learned Special Judge so much so to interfere with his judgment. So in this connection the finding of the lower Court was not defective or suffered from any irregularity. 6. In the result. I do not find anything amiss in the finding of the learned Special Judge so much so to interfere with his judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed.