JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.1994 as passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 29/1993 whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 12.1.1993 as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Case No. 386/1982 convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The accusations against the petitioner had been that he was engaged in the work of distribution of the control items; that upon inspection of the record maintained by him on 21.4.1982, it was found that on 29.7.1981, he obtained permit No. 20464 and took delivery of 45 quintals of wheat from Sardarshahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited but in the Stock register, entered the quantity received as 40 quintals only and had shown distribution of 39.96 quintals; that on 5.10.1981, he obtained permit No. 20499 and procured 50 quintals of wheat from Taranagar Kray Viray Sahakari Samiti Limited but did not enter the same in the stock register; and that in the statement produced in Tehsil Taranagar on 2.3.1982, he did not specify the receipt and delivery of such 55 quintals of wheat. The omission on the part of the petitioner was alleged to be of contravention of Clause 17 (C) of his authorisation and violation of Sections 3/7 and 3/9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. After trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act; the prayer as made by the petitioner for extending the benefit of probation was declined; and he was sentenced as aforesaid. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and found no case for leniency. 4. Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no allegation that the petitioner sold the wheat in black market or indulged in any illegal activity; and merely for the mistake in entries in the stock register, the petitioner ought not to have been visited with harsh punishment. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the orders impugned. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the orders impugned. 5. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions and having examined the record, so far the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is unable to find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders as passed by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge after examining the evidence available on record. 6. So far the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is notice that the accusation relates to the incident of the year 1981; and in its essence, the accusation against the petitioner has been of technical offence in not maintaining the stock register properly and the present one does not appear to be a case for imposing the sentence per clause (a)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is noticed that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on 21.10.1994 but execution of the sentence was suspended by this Court in this revision petition on 2.11.1994 and the petitioner was released on 7.11.1994. The accused-petitioner has faced this case for about 28 years and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including the nature of accusation coupled with the fact that the technical offence was committed more than 28 years back, this Court is of opinion that no useful purpose would be served with imprisonment of the petitioner any further; and interest of justice shall be served with modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner for imprisonment to the term already undergone with enhancement of fine following the decision of this Court in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LR (Raj) 191 . 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. While the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained, the sentence as awarded, in the given circumstances, is altered to that of the period of imprisonment already undergone but with a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (One thousand five hundred), and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 8. The fine aforesaid shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within a period of three months failing which, the learned trial Court shall take adequate steps in accordance with law.Appeal partly allowed. *******