JUDGMENT: The appellant was convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madurai in S.T.C. No.29 of 1994 under Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with 0.3(3), 4, 5, 7 and 35 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months. 2. The appellant is the licenced fertiliser dealer bearing licence No.703/92. The licenced premises is at Mecca Mandapam. On 16.9.1992, at about 12.00 hours, the complainant, Fertilizer Inspector, Thakkalai, inspected the premises of the accused and on physical verification, found an excess stock of 11.312 kgs of various chemical fertilizers and there was also a shortage of 120 kgs. of Muriate of Potash. At the time of inspection, the appellant was not there, but one salesman, T. Chellam was available and the said person could not account for the excess and deficit in the stock. Therefore, after giving a day’s time to explain, P.W.1, the Complainant went back and returned the next day. On 17.9.1992 at about 12 hours, when the complainant went to the premises of the accused, the appellant was present and when queried about the excess and deficit stocks, he could not reply. Therefore, the appellant has been prosecuted. 3. The learned Special Judge taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 and also the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D-1 came to a conclusion that the offence alleged against the appellant stood proved and therefore, convicted the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. P.W. 1 is the Agricultural Officer at Nagercoil empowered to check the premises of the appellant under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. His evidence is that he inspected the premises of the appellant on 16.9.1992, found excess and deficit stock as described above and thereafter, gave an opportunity to the salesman to explain the alleged excess and shortage the next day. He also visited the shop on 17.9 1992. Though the appellant was present, he could not give any explanation for the deficit and excess stock of the fertilisers. P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer, who was present during the inspection on 17.9.1992 speaks that he was watching the inspection of P.W. 1 and a statement was recorded from the salesman, Chellam and the appellant refused to give any statement. Though the appellant was present, he could not give any explanation for the deficit and excess stock of the fertilisers. P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer, who was present during the inspection on 17.9.1992 speaks that he was watching the inspection of P.W. 1 and a statement was recorded from the salesman, Chellam and the appellant refused to give any statement. P.W.3, the Agricultural Officer would say that he succeeded P.W. 1 and after going through the inspection notice, found violations of the Fertiliser (Control) Order. Therefore, after getting appropriate authorisation, the complaint was lodged. 5. The appellant while questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. filed a written statement, wherein he alleged that certain vouchers and bills were taken away by P.W. 1 and therefore, he could not produce the correct accounts. On his behalf, he examined, one Rathinakumar, who is his nephew. He only says that the Labour Officer found that there was no salesman as per Ex.D-1. Insofar as the excess and the deficit stock in certain items of fertilizers are concerned, no explanation has admittedly been offered by the appellant and therefore, the fact that there was excess stock of 11.312 kgs of various chemical fertilizers and a shortage of 120 kgs of Muriate of Potash stand established. 6. Coining to the provisions regarding violations, the first violation as alleged by the prosecution is O.3(3) which says that no dealer shall sell or offer for sale any fertiliser at a price exceeding the maximum price or rate fixed under this clause. Insofar as this violation is concerned, there is a veritable attempt made by P.W.1 himself that his investigation did not reveal that the appellant sold the fertiliser for a higher price. Moreover, mere excess stock or deficit stock cannot lead to a presumption that the fertilizer should have been sold for a higher price. May be it is an unaccounted sale. Therefore, the violation of 0.3, Rule (3) cannot be held to have been made out. 7. The next violation is O.4 which speaks about display of stock position and price list of fertilisers by the dealers. There is no evidence from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that there was no display of stock position and price list of fertilisers. This violation only penalises non display of stock position and price list of fertilizers, but it does not speak, about wrong display. There is no evidence from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that there was no display of stock position and price list of fertilisers. This violation only penalises non display of stock position and price list of fertilizers, but it does not speak, about wrong display. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was no display of stocks or price list. May be it is the duty of the appellant as a dealer to display the correct stock position. But in this case, in the absence of any evidence that he had not displayed the correct stock position, I am unable to hold that 0.4 has been violated by the appellant. 8. The other violation is O.7 which imposes a duty on the dealer that he shall carry on the business of selling fertilisers only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificate of the Registration granted to him under Clause 9. There is no dispute that the appellant was granted a certificate of Registration. According to P.W.3, the deficit stock and excess stock in various fertilisers lead to an inference that the appellant have sold them without bills. That appears to be a correct inference drawn by P.W.3. According to P.W.3, this is a violation under O.7. O.7 only speaks about registration and Form B, which relates to registration under Clause (9). It does not contain a condition that sales shall not be effected without bills. O.5 reads that every dealer shall issue a cash or credit memorandum to a purchaser of a fertiliser in Form M. In this case, it is very much evident by the presence of excess and deficit stock that O.5 has been violated. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he did not give any complaint about sale of fertilisers without bills. May be so, but the fact remains that the non explanation of the appellant about either the deficit stock or the excess stock of the fertilizers only leads to an irresistible inference that those fertilizers should have been sold without bills and the excess stock was available only because of showing the sales but actually not sold or otherwise, the stock verification should not have shown so much of discrepancy. It is very difficult in such cases to find out sale without bills. It is very difficult in such cases to find out sale without bills. The moment the Fertiliser Officer is present at the place of business, I do not think any dealer will dare to sell fertilisers without bills. Merely because, there is no ocular testimony available, it cannot be said that O.5 has been not violated. 9. Coming to O.35, it speaks about maintenance of records and submission of returns. Maintenance of records presupposes correct maintenance of records in this case and admittedly, the stock register was not correctly maintained. Therefore, there is violation of O.35 also. 10. In the result, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that there was violation of O.5 and O.35 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order and though the other violations were held to have been proved, it cannot be accepted. The learned ‘trial Judge has chosen to impose a punishment of imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500 on the appellant. 11. Under Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) which appears to be the penal provision for the above said violation, the punishment prescribed is 7 years with a minimum period of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 months. Considering the advance age of the appellant, I am inclined to impose the minimum sentence of three months besides confirming the sentence of fine already imposed and he is accordingly imposed with three months imprisonment instead of one year. With this reduction in sentence, the appeal stands dismissed on merits.