Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal Nos. 773- SB of 2002 and 814-SB of 2002, as both have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Panipat (hereinafter referred as the "Trial Court"). However, the facts are being taken from Crl. A. No. 773-SB of 2002. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 9/12.4.2002 whereby the learned Special Judge, Panipat has convicted the appellants under Sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as projected in para 2 of the Trial Court judgment, is that : "On 11.10.1996, at about 6.00 p.m., Randhir Singh SI/SHO P.S. Samalka, along with ASI Mahender Singh, Constable Surinder Singh No. 675, Const. Jai Parkash No. 613 was present in connection with excise and patrol duty at Beholi Turn G.T. Road Samalkha. He received secret information that accused Dharam Pal was carrying kerosene oil in the drums meant for milk on his motor cycle No. HNK- 9928 from the depot of Depot Holder named Ranbir Singh accused @ Rs. 5.30 per ltr. from Raj Nagar, Panipat so as to further sell it to retailers and poor persons @ Rs. 7/- per ltr. in black and in case of Nakabandi at Namunda Canal bridge he could be apprehended upon which police party headed by SI/SHO took Chet Ram, AFSO Samalkha with them and took position in the form of Nakabandi at the bridge for the Canal and meanwhile the accused Dharam Pal was apprehended while coming on the said motor cycle carrying six drums meant for milk which on checking were found retaining kerosene oil of blue colour about which he could not produce any permit or licence and that in all 170 ltrs. kerosene oil was found to be carried by him. He further disclosed that he had purchased the same from Ranbir Singh accused @ 5.30 per ltrs. and was to re-sale it to retailers and other persons. kerosene oil was found to be carried by him. He further disclosed that he had purchased the same from Ranbir Singh accused @ 5.30 per ltrs. and was to re-sale it to retailers and other persons. Then one bottle each was separated from each drum and then they were sealed with the seal RS and were taken into possession along with Motor cycle along with Registration Certificate and Driving Licence and then seal after use was handed over to AFSO Chet Ram. Accused Dharam Pal could not produce any permit or licence for keeping 170 ltrs. of kerosene oil in connivance with Ranbir Singh Depot Holder, the accused, and, thus, committed the offence punishable u/s 7/10/55 of E.C. Act and 120-B of IPC. Then SI Randhir Singh sent ruqa Ex. PG/1 to the police station through constable Jai Parkash on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PG was recorded by ASI Atma Ram, PW4, who also made his endorsement on the ruqa itself as Ex. PG/2. He also prepared rough site plan on the place of recovery as Ex.PH with correct marginal notes, recorded statements of witnesses, arrested accused Dharam Pal on 25.10.1996. SI Randhir Singh along with HC Satish Chand and Chet Ram AFSO had gone to the premises of accused Ranbir Singh in village Gawalra and took into possession registers Ex. P7 and Ex. P8 vide memo Ex. PE attested by PWs and also checking report Ex. PF so prepared by AFSO Chet Ram of the Depot of accused Ranbir. He recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested accused Ranbir Singh on 15.11.1996 and thereafter on completion of investigation, both the accused were challaned u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Station House Office, Police Station Samalkha. 5. . Accused-appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating the provision of Clause 3 of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976 by accused- appellant Dharam Pal and for violating the provision of Clause 9 of the Haryana Prevention of Hording and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 by accused-appellant Ranbir to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. . In order to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses viz. 6. . In order to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses viz. SI Mohinder Singh as PW1, SI Zile Singh as PW2 and Chet Singh, retired AFSO as PW3, ASI Atma Ram as PW4, Randhir Singh, SI/SHO, who headed the raiding party and investigated the case as PW5. PW Satish Chander was given up as unnecessary. 7. . Statement of the accused-appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution version and pleaded false implication. 8. . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the term as noticed in para No. 2 of this judgment. 9. . Hence the present appeals. 10. . Both the appeals were admitted on 9.5.2002 and 13.5.2002 respectively. 11. . Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, she prays for a lenient view in the matter of sentence. 12. . The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellants because they have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. He has produced the custody certificates of both the accused-appellants before this Court, which are taken on record. 13. . From the record, it is made out that FIR in the instant case was registered on 11.10.1996, thus, the appellants, by now, have suffered protracted trial for about 14 years. As per custody certificates, the accusedappellant Ranbir Singh has already undergone sentence for about 9 days whereas accused- appellant Dharampal has already undergone sentence for about 13 days. 14. . The Honble Supreme Court in 2006(3) Apex Criminal 493 : 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under :- "26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment" 15. . In another case titled as "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :- "After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly". 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice. 17. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the appellants in both the appeals is reduced to the one already undergone by them. In the alternative, the sentence of fine for the appellants is, however, enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the appellants in both the appeals is reduced to the one already undergone by them. In the alternative, the sentence of fine for the appellants is, however, enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, within the period stipulated above, in that eventuality, these appeals shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the appellants would be taken into custody to suffer the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.