ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 28-10-2002, in Cri.A. No. 50 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, wherein the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence under Section 17(c)(1) r/w 23(5) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for brevity, 'the Act') in S.T.C. No. 117 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent/complainant. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint in S.T.C. No. 117 of 1996 alleging that the revision petitioner who is a licensed trader under the Act failed to produce the account books for the years, 1992-93 to 199495 in spite of notice/Ex.P-1 issued under Section 17 (c)(1) of the Act and failed to respond to the show cause notice/Ex. P-2, and therefore after obtaining the necessary orders of sanction under Ex. P-3 the complaint was filed. The revision petitioner/accused took a plea that he gave a reply notice. EX.D-1 to the demand notice. Ex. P-1 and also submitted Explanation/ Ex. D-2 to the show cause notice/Ex. P-2 stating that the registers were produced before the Commercial Tax authorities for the purpose of assessment and therefore they could not be produced by him in response to Ex. P-1/demand notice. The trial Court disbelieved the version of the accused and held that he failed to establish that at the given time the registers were in the custody of the Commercial Tax authorities and he also failed to establish the service of Exs. D-1 and D-2 on the complaint. Holding that except the self-serving oral testimony of the accused/D. W.1 there was no other evidence to substantiate the plea put forward by him for non-production of the registers and in view of the fact that the accused has in fact admitted the service of demand notice/Ex. P-1, and show cause notice/Ex. P-2 on him and his non-production of the registers in response thereto, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 17(c)(1) r/w Section 23(5) of the Act and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. P-1, and show cause notice/Ex. P-2 on him and his non-production of the registers in response thereto, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 17(c)(1) r/w Section 23(5) of the Act and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor also confirmed the said conviction and sentence by judgment, dated 28-10-2002, in Cri.A. No. 50 of 2000. Hence, the present Revision Case by the accused. 4. It is not disputed that the accused was a licensed trader within the meaning '='f ~he Act, and he is liable to produce the registers" and records in response to the notice issued by the complainant under Ex. P-1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would however submit that the failure to produce the registers and records in response to the notice issued under Section 17(c)(1) of the Act is not punishable under Section 23(5) of the Act and if at all it attracts punishment under Rule 70(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for brevity, 'the rules') which prescribes punishment of imposition of fine extending upto Rs. 500/-. 6. Section 17(c) of the Act deals with the power to order production of accounts and power of entry, inspection and seizure. Sub Section (1) enables the assessing authority or any Officer of the department of Marketing to require any trader to produce accounts, registers and other documents. Sub-Section (2) states that all accounts, registers, and documents maintained by the licensed trader are open for inspection by the said authority or Officer at any time during the business hours. Sub-Section (3) enables the authorities to effect seizure of the accounts or registers, other documents if there are reasons to suspect that the trader is attempting to evade any payment of fees. Sub-Section (4) confers powers on authorities to enter the business premises and effect search. Section 23 states as follows: "23. Sub-Section (3) enables the authorities to effect seizure of the accounts or registers, other documents if there are reasons to suspect that the trader is attempting to evade any payment of fees. Sub-Section (4) confers powers on authorities to enter the business premises and effect search. Section 23 states as follows: "23. Penalties:- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 7 or fails to pay the fees levied under sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in the case of a continuing contravention with further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the contravention is continued after conviction thereof'. 7. It can be seen from the language employed in the above provision that the penalty contemplated under Section 23(5) of the Act is only in respect of prevention, obstruction for inspection, entry, search or seizure by the assessing authority. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant that any inspection or entry or search or seizure was made or effected and there was any obstruction or prevention caused by the accused there to. The only complaint against the accused is that he failed to produce the registers for the years, 1992-93 to 1994-95 in response to the notice issued under Section 17(c)(1) of the Act. 8. Mere failure to respond to such notice and produce the registers does not constitute an offence or carry any punishment in terms of Section 23(5) of the Act. Inasmuch as there was no inspection or entry, search or seizure contemplated by the authorities and there was never any prevention or obstruction by the accused, the provisions of Section 23(5) of the Act are not attracted at all. The trial Court and also the first appellate Court appeared to have failed to notice that the punishment prescribed under Section 23(5) of the Act is confined only to any prevention or obstruction to inspection, entry, search or seizure, but not for any other violation including failure to respond to notice calling for production of registers. The trial Court and also the first appellate Court appeared to have failed to notice that the punishment prescribed under Section 23(5) of the Act is confined only to any prevention or obstruction to inspection, entry, search or seizure, but not for any other violation including failure to respond to notice calling for production of registers. It is well settled that the penal laws have to be strictly interpreted and the scope and ambit of any penal provision cannot be enlarged so as to cover the aspects which have not been contemplated there under. In other words, when Section 23(5) of the Act renders only prevention or obstruction for an inspection, entry, search or seizure alone liable for punishment, the said penal consequences cannot be extended to non-production of the records or registers in response to the notice issued under Section 17(c)(1) of the Act simply because Section 23(5) of the Act refers to Section 17(c) of the Act. That the non-production of records in response to such notice under Section 17(c)(1) of the Act is not covered by the penal provisions contained in Section 23(5) of the Act, is fortified by the fact that Rule 70 of the Rules specifically takes care of such situation. 9. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 70 of the Rules ordains upon the licensed trader to maintain accounts in such manner and submit such reports and returns to the authority as may be specified by the Market Committee and sub rule (2) states that if any licensed person fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the directions of the Secretary or the Director to produce before him the account books and other relevant records and documents for inspection, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- . Thus the failure to produce the records or registers in response to the notice issued by the concerned authority is specifically rendered punishable under sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules. The imposition of the simple imprisonment of three months by invoking the provisions of Section 23(5) of the Act by the Courts below is therefore unsustainable and is liable to be set aside as the provisions of Section 23(5) of the Act are not applicable to the present case. As the accused admitted his failure to produce the registers and records before the authorities in response to the demand notice/Ex. As the accused admitted his failure to produce the registers and records before the authorities in response to the demand notice/Ex. P-1 and failed to substantiate his plea that at the relevant time they were in the custody of the Commercial Tax authorities, he is liable for conviction for the offence under Section 17 (c)(1) of the Act which is punishable only under Rule 70(2) of the Rules. 10. In the circumstances, the revision petitioner/accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 17(c)(1) of the Act and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Rule 70(2) of the Rules. The judgments of the Courts below are modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as stated above.