Judgment L.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7(i) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violating the order 10 (iii) of Bihar Cement Control Order 1972 (in short the order) and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the written report of the informant is that he was returning from Dehri to Rohtas on 30th January, 1986 and was accompanied by some of the associates. When they reached near Mahabir Asthan situated at village Wajidpur, P.S. Rohtas at about 8.15 P.M. they saw that the cement being unloaded from a truck near Mahabir Asthan. He, therefore, enquired about the cement as to whether the same was levy cement or non-levy cement but no reply whatsoever was given by the driver of the truck. He also enquired about the papers with respect to the cement but even papers with respect to the truck and cement were not produced. It has been stated that the truck was bearing no. B.R.J. 6479. He thought that the same was unloaded on the truck for the purpose of black-marketing. He found 79 bags of cement loaded on the truck. The truck with the cement was brought to Rohtas Police Station. The truck driver disclosed his name as Manik Chand Ram belonging to district Rohtas and the clearner of the truck disclosed his name as Daroga Chauhan belonging to district Rohtas. The informant submitted a written report for taking legal action against them. Thereafter the F.I.R. was drawn up. 79 bags of cement was seized and production list Ext.2 was prepared. 3. After investigation the Police submitted chargesheet under Section 7 of the Essential Act and 420 I.P.C. against the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by the Special-Judge on 20.06.1988 and he tried the case. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 6. P.W. 1 is Radhe Shyam, Assistant of the Block. P.W. 2 is Shashikant Tiwari. He is the informant of this case. P.W. 3 is Jogeshwar Prasad Mandal, the Block Development Officer. P.W. 4 is Hiralal Chaudhary, the driver of the jeep. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 6. P.W. 1 is Radhe Shyam, Assistant of the Block. P.W. 2 is Shashikant Tiwari. He is the informant of this case. P.W. 3 is Jogeshwar Prasad Mandal, the Block Development Officer. P.W. 4 is Hiralal Chaudhary, the driver of the jeep. P.W. 5 Krishna Pandey and P.W. 6 Ram Lakhan Pandey are seizure list witnesses and P.W. 7 is Kanhaiya Sah who has been tendered. 7. P.W. 2 Shashikant Tiwari, Circle Officer, the informant of this case has fully supported the case as stated in his written report. According to him he along with other officers were returning to Rohtas by jeep after attending a meeting on 30th January, 1986. When his jeep reached near Wajidpur Mahabir Asthan at about 8.15 P.M. he found a truck bearing no. B.R.J. 6479 standing on the road from which the cement bags were being unloaded. He got down from the jeep and enquired about the cement from the truck driver and the clearner who could not produce any paper with respect to that. He has stated that the truck was ladden with 79 bags of cement at that time. The driver and the cleaner disclosed their name as Manik Chand Ram and Daroga Chauhan respectively. Thereafter he took the truck ladden with the cement to the Police Station where he submitted his written report marked Ext.1. He put his signature over it and also prepared a seizure list on which he also put his signature Ext.2. In his cross-examination he has categorically denied that a receipt (marked as x for identification) was shown by the accused Manik Chand. 8. P.W. 1 is Radhe Shyam, an Assistant in Rohtas Block. He was also returning back by the same jeep, has fully supported the case of prosecution. According to him when jeep came near Wajidpur, Mahabir Asthan he saw a truck from which the cement was being unloaded. When the jeep stopped there he also went near the truck. He has stated that the Circle Officer (P.W. 2), (informant) asked about the papers relating to the cement but he did not produce any papers with regard to the same. Thereafter the truck was taken to Rohtas Police Station and the driver of the truck disclosed his name as Manik Chand Ram and the clearner disclosed his name as Daroga Chauhan. 9. Thereafter the truck was taken to Rohtas Police Station and the driver of the truck disclosed his name as Manik Chand Ram and the clearner disclosed his name as Daroga Chauhan. 9. P.W. 3 Yogeshwar Prasad Mandal and P.W. 4. Hiralal Chaudhary have also supported the version of P.W. 2, the informant and P.W. 1, Radhe Shyam. 10. P.W. 5 is Krishna Pandey. he is a seizure list witness and the same was prepared at the Police Station in his presence at 9.30 P.M. on 30.1.1986. He has proved his signature on the seizure list marked as Ext.3. 11. P.W. 6 Ram Lakhan Pandey @ Ram Lakhan Singh is also a seizure list witness. He has denied that the seizure list was prepared in his presence. He has admitted his signature but has stated that the Police had obtained his signature in the morning on that day. 12. P.W. 7 Kanhai Sao has been tendered. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has not appreciated the identification marked as X which was given to the I.O. in proof of purchase of non-levy cement but the I.O. has not been examined which has prejudiced the case of defence, but it appears that the paper marked as X for identification was not exhibited and this plea of free sale of cement was not taken by the appellant Manik Chand Ram in his statement under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that he will argue the case only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of 21 years back and the appellant has been mentally and physically harassed during the prolong litigation and he has also remained in jail for about two months. He has also deposited the amount of fine of Rs. 500/-, as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellant. 15. Considering the submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.