JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner, a member of Schedule Caste, is convicted by the trial court i.e. the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh for violation of Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1978 read with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months with fine of Rs. 2000/- as sentence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence by judgment dated 23.5.1994. 2. While giving challenge to the orders aforesaid, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that admittedly the act of the accused is an outcome of social evils and therefore, the courts below must have extended the benefit of probation to him. 3. Per contra, the stand of learned Public Prosecutor is that stringent action are necessary to curb social evils and therefore, whatever sentence has been awarded by the trial court is adequate and no interference is required to be made by this Court while exercising power under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. 4. I have examined the orders impugned and record of the courts below. 5. The factual matrix of the case is that on 9.6.1978, the Enforcement Officer alongwith police-force made a raid in Village Negadia, Tehsil Dugla, Distt. Chittorgarh whereon he recovered certain food articles purported to be prepared for organising "death feast" as a consequent to death of accused's father. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the accused-petitioner before the competent court for offences punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of provisions of Guest Control Order, 1978. 6. During the course of trial, the Enforcement Officer, Police Personnel and two independent witnesses were examined in support of prosecution case. The independent witnesses were declared hostile and by relying upon the statements given by the Enforcement Officer and the Police Personnel, the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. 7. Before the appellate court, the case of the accused petitioner was that there was no adequate evidence to held him guilty for the alleged charge. It was also contended that the death feast is a social evil and there was no intention on the part of the accused-petitioner to commit any offence. 2000/-. 7. Before the appellate court, the case of the accused petitioner was that there was no adequate evidence to held him guilty for the alleged charge. It was also contended that the death feast is a social evil and there was no intention on the part of the accused-petitioner to commit any offence. If the prosecution story be accepted as it is then to the act in question was nothing but observance of a ritual, that become a social evil by flux of time. The appellate court negativated both the contentions and rejected the appeal. 8. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that now the Ordinance of 1978 has already been repealed and in totality of the facts it shall not be proper to remit the petitioner to undergo remaining sentence. 9. It is the position admitted that the accused-petitioner is coming from lower echelons of society, where the social evils are prevailing in the name of social rituals. True it is, necessary steps are always desired to curb social evils, but at the same time it is also required to be kept in mind that the social evils are not individual acts but are outcome of prevailing social circumstances. The social evils are required to be dealt with stringently, with an attitude and approach of reforms. 10. In the present case, the accused-petitioner was found guilty for holding 'mratiyu bhoj' in excess to the number prescribed under the Order of 1978. Such kind of rituals are quite common in lower echelons of society. A person makes all efforts to adhere these rituals and gather satisfaction of discharging social responsibility. To curb such tendency, reprimand, censure or the extension of probation are reformative mode. 11. In the case in hand, I do not find any reason for not extending such benefit. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to confine the sentence only to the extend of fine of Rs. 2000/-. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in-part. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence part is modified and is confined only to the extent of fine of Rs. 2000/-.Revision partly allowed. *******