Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the three appellants have been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Lalan Das, the then O/C, Sitamarhi was returning from Vivah Panchami Mela along with S.I., Ajay Kumar and A.S.I. Dilip Kumar and when he reached near Gaushala of Sitamarhi town be saw a rickshaw going towards Punaura on Sitmarhi Sheohar road along with 5 bags cement loaded on it and on query made by the informant, the rickshaw puller Ram Sagar Rai told that the aforesaid 5 bags cement belonged to one Amiri Lal Sah of village Berbas who purchased the same from the shop of Yugal Sah situated at Kote Bazar, Sitamarhi, near Basusari Cinema and he was carrying the same on hire at the rate of Rs. 1.50 paise per bag. It has been stated that the aforesaid five bags cement had been seized by the informant near Gausala Janki Asthan in presence of two independent witnesses Madan Prasad Yadav and Ram Autar Sah and prepared seizure list over which the above named witnesses put their signatures. It has been further stated that the seized five bags cement were sent to Sitamarhi P.S. and the informant and his companions took the rickshaw puller and came to the shop of Yugal Sah situated at Kote Bazar Sitamarhi and at that time accused Yugal Sah was absent. It has been stated that 45 bags cement and Sanchas for manufacturing cement ventilator and several permits cash memos were seized and seizure lists were prepared in presence of witnesses Lakshmi Prasad and Lakshmi Narayan Yadav. The informant and the members of the raiding party learnt from confidential information that accused Yugal Sah, Bhola Sah and Dharmadeo Tiwari (appellants) used to carry Illegal business in cement and they sell cement by mixing Saigol in it in black marketing. The informant and the members of the raiding party learnt from confidential information that accused Yugal Sah, Bhola Sah and Dharmadeo Tiwari (appellants) used to carry Illegal business in cement and they sell cement by mixing Saigol in it in black marketing. It was further learnt that the accused persons had got their godown in the house of one Padma Shanker Choudhary situated at Kote Bazar and the informant and the members of the raiding party visited the said godown and seized 52 bags Saigol, 10 bags, A.C.C. cement and 60 bags A.C.C. Swastic Brand cement from the said godown and prepared seizure list in presence of witnesses, Narendra Kumar and Bhagwan Lai Prasad. It was also learnt that the accused persons had got their godowns in the houses of Jagtaran Prasad and Baid Nath Prasad and they had kept A.C.C. as well as Saigol cement in the above noted godowns. At the time of search of the godowns situated in the house of Padma Shanker Choudhary accused Bhola Sah came and the Search and seizure had been made in his presence. It has been stated that since it became night, the godown situated in the house of Jagtaran Prasad could not be searched and a Havildar Satan Paswan and constable no. 205 Sitaram Yadav were deputed to watch the said godown. The informant further learnt that the appellants after making criminal conspiracy do the black marketing business of A.C.C. cement after mixing Saigol in the same on higher rates without having licence or permit for the same and they further construct cement ventilators after mixing Saigol in A.C. cement. On the basis of the written report dated 15.12.83 Sitamarhi P.S. No. 401/83 under sections 420, 486 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7 of the E.C. Act was registered. Accordingly, First Information Report was drawn up at Sitamarhi P.S. by the informant Lalan Das. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether eight witnesses. P. W. 1 is Lakshmi Pd. Accordingly, First Information Report was drawn up at Sitamarhi P.S. by the informant Lalan Das. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether eight witnesses. P. W. 1 is Lakshmi Pd. Yadav, P.W. 2 is Ram Sagar Rai, P. W. 3 is Ram Swarath Ram, P. W. 4 is Madan Prasad Yadav, P.W. 5 is Rajdeo Paswan, P.W. 6 is Lakshmi Pd., P.W. 7 is Binod Kumar Parshurampuria and P.W. 8 is Dilip Kumar. Out of these witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 are seizure list witnesses. P. W. 3 is a formal witness whereas P.W. 5 has been declared hostile. In this case the informant and the purchaser of cement Amirilal have not been examined. 5. P.W. 2, the rickshaw puller has stated that he loaded five bags of A.C.C. cement at the shop of accused persons situated in Kort Bazar which has been purchased by one Amirilal Sah and he was carrying the same on rickshaw on hire of Rs. 1.50 Paise per bag. According to him, when he reached near Goshala Chowk his rickshaw was stopped by a police party and he and his rickshaw were brought to Naka No. 12 of Sitamarhi and five bags of cement were seized. He gave the statement before the S.I. of Police. P.W. 7 the landlord has stated that his house is near Janta Cinema, Sitamarhi town, the appellant Jugal Sah had taken his house on rent and he carried his business in the said house. He has stated that on 15.12.83 the raiding party had seized cash of Rs. 357/- from a wooden box, one two band transistor of Nelco, one bed-sheet and other articles from the shop of accused Jugal Sah on 15.12.83. 6. P.W. 8 is the then A.S.I. of Sitamarhi P.S. He has stated that on 15.12.83 he was returning from Vivah Panchami Mela along with informant Lalan Das, the then O/C Sitamarhi RS. 357/- from a wooden box, one two band transistor of Nelco, one bed-sheet and other articles from the shop of accused Jugal Sah on 15.12.83. 6. P.W. 8 is the then A.S.I. of Sitamarhi P.S. He has stated that on 15.12.83 he was returning from Vivah Panchami Mela along with informant Lalan Das, the then O/C Sitamarhi RS. and S.I. Ajay Kumar and at about 3.30 P.M. when he reached near Gausala Chowk, he saw one rickshaw puller carrying five bags of cement towards village Berbas on Sitmarhi-Sheohar road and on suspicion the said rickshaw was stopped and on query the rickshaw puller told the members of the raiding party that one Amiri Lal Sah purchased 5 bags A.C.C. cement from the shop of accused Jugal Sah situated in Kote Bazar on Basushri Cinema road and he was carrying the same to Barbas on hire of Rs. 1.50 paise per bag. He has stated that on the orders given by informant Lalan Das he prepared seizure list of five bags cement in presence of two independent witnesses. After that the raiding party reached at the shop of Jugal Sah situated at Kote Bazar where search was made and bags of cement and several Sanchas of ventilators were recovered and seized and seizure list was prepared as per order given by the informant. He has further stated that he prepared another seizure list relating to cash memoes, permits and other papers as seized from the aforesaid shop of accused Jugal Sah in presence of witnesses Lakshmi Pd. and Lakshmi Nr. Yadav. He has stated that after that they reached to the shop of accused Bhola Sah situated in the house of Padma Shanker Chowdhary in Kote Bazar and seized 52 bags Saigol cement, 10 bags A.C.C. cement and 60 bags of Swastic A.C.C. cement in presence of witnesses Narendra Kumar and Bhagwan Prasad and prepared seizure list. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution could not prove that the cement so stored was being sold in black market. It has been further submitted that since the cement so stored was for manufacturing the ventilators, it was not necessary to have valid licence in terms of Cement Control Order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution could not prove that the cement so stored was being sold in black market. It has been further submitted that since the cement so stored was for manufacturing the ventilators, it was not necessary to have valid licence in terms of Cement Control Order. In support of his argument he has relied on a decision in the case of The State of Bihar vs. M/s. Parle Products [ 2001 (2) PLJR 815 ] in which it was held that the stock of Maida and Sugar which was found in the factory premises of the appellant in excess of storage limit, was not illegal and it did not attract violation of Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984. The petitioner was not required to have any licence under the Unification Order and it did not attract violation of storage limit even if he stored more than the limit so fixed since it was for the personal consumption. However, the facts of the present case is different from the case which has been cited by the learned counsel. In the present case the appellants failed to show any proof or any registration for manufacturing of ventilator. That apart, even five bags of cement were caught which were being carried on a rickshaw and on enquiry the rickshaw puller clearly stated that five bags of cement were purchased by Amiri Lal from the shop of appellant Jugal. This fact also finds support from the deposition of P.W. 8. P.W. 1 has also stated that from the shop of Jugal Sah and Dharamdeo Tiwary 45 bags of cement were recovered for which seizure list was prepared on which he put his signature. The other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 the rickshaw puller has also stated that he was carrying five bags of cement which were purchased from the shop of the appellants by one Amiri Lal. Thus the prosecution has established that the appellants were engaged in trade of cement and were selling the cement without proper licence. P.W. 2 the rickshaw puller has also stated that he was carrying five bags of cement which were purchased from the shop of the appellants by one Amiri Lal. Thus the prosecution has established that the appellants were engaged in trade of cement and were selling the cement without proper licence. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the court below has rightly found the appellants guilty for violating the Cement Control Order as laid down under the provisions of section 3 of the E.C. Act and they are liable to be punished under section 7 of the E.C. Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellant Bhola Sah has remained in jail for some time, appellant Jugal Sah is aged about 60 years and appellant Dharamdeo Tiwary alias Dak Babu is aged about 70 years and the occurrence took place in 1983, as such they have been sufficiently punished during the prolonged litigation and it requires consideration on the point of sentence. Coming to the question of sentence appellant Jugal Sah and Dharam Deo Tiwary alias Dak Babu are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and appellant Bhola Sah is sentenced to the period already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by them within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. With the aforesaid modification in sentence these appeals are dismissed.