JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):-Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 17.11.1997 whereby the appellant was held guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on the charge that he had not maintained record of his ration depot properly, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. According to the prosecution, the ration depot belonging to the appellant was inspected by PW6 Shri V. Umashanker, SDO (Civil) at Palwal on 13.2.1996. At that time, he was accompanied by PW2 Bhupinder Singh, Naib Tehsildar (Accounts) and PW3 Som Nath, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department. During inspection, it was found that the appellant was not maintaining the record properly. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. However, he has submitted that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 14 years. In the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he was recorded to be 17 years of age. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was not a previous convict and there was no other bread winner in his family. It is also submitted that he remained in jail as an under-trial for a couple of days and even after his conviction and sentence by the trial Court he was taken into custody on 15.12.1997 as he could not obtain any order regarding bail from this Court within the time allowed to him for filing the appeal and obtaining orders regarding bail. He remained in jail as a convict for a period of about three weeks before release on bail. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court be reduced. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence as he was responsible for committing an economic offence by not maintaining proper records of the ration depot run by him. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence as he was responsible for committing an economic offence by not maintaining proper records of the ration depot run by him. However, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate in respect of the period already undergone by the appellant. 5. A perusal of the custody certificate would reveal that the appellant remained in jail as an under-trial for four days and, thereafter, as a convict for 20 days. Thus, he has already spent a period of 24 days in jail out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the head of the appellant for the last more than 14 years. Even the present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last 12½ years. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. 6. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.2,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,000/-, in default thereof, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. But for the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the appeal fails, and is, therefore, dismissed. -------------