JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal challenges appellant's conviction and sentence awarded of one year R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act recorded in Special Case No. 8/1986 recorded vide judgment dated 14.12.1988. The appellant is held guilty of storing cement in violation of Rajasthan Cement Licence and Control Order, 1974 under Section 3 of the Act. 2. Surfacing alleged factual aspect appears to be that Dy. S.P. PW-4 on 20.2.1984, having received some secret information raided shop of appellant and there is presence of PW-1, PW-2 found 321 bags, each 50 kg. of cement having mark of ISI Birla Cement 'Levy'. Appellant disclosed of having no licence so the cement being stored in violation of Control order was seized preparing memo Ex.P-1. Appellant was arrested and on his information Ex.P-5, PW-4 recovering 218 bags of cement from his residential house seized preparing memo Ex.P-3. Samples collected from bags vide Ex.P-6 on 6.10.1984 was forwarded for chemical examination which per laboratory report Ex.P-7 found of ordinary Portland cement. After usual investigation, charge-sheet submitted. 3. Prosecution in addition to Dy. S.P. PW-4 and motbirs PW-1 and PW-2 also examined accompanying Head Constable PW-5 who state of accompanying PW-4 and above recovery. In order to prove possession of appellant examined is Mamraj PW-10 who per prosecution was owner landlord of the shop. Dhanraj PW-3 deposes of having rented out room to appellant from where 218 bags recovered. PW-8 and PW-9 speak of sample scaling. 4. Appellant explains that cement is not owned by him and he was only employee on a cloth shop from where police called him and got his signatures on some papers. Learned Special judge finding appellant in possession of the above cement and without licence convicted and sentenced. 5. PW-8 and PW-9 speak of sample scaling. 4. Appellant explains that cement is not owned by him and he was only employee on a cloth shop from where police called him and got his signatures on some papers. Learned Special judge finding appellant in possession of the above cement and without licence convicted and sentenced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that premises (shop) from where said recovery of 218 bags is not proved to be in possession of appellant-person Mamraj PW-10 said to be landlord in no way supports the prosecution rather deposes of appellant working on some cloth shop - said motbir PW-1 and PW-2 also not completely support the prosecution - if the appellant was shop owner then there is no question of his living in only one rented room as said by PW-4 - alleged seizure is of March whereas, sample taken in October that is seven months after and in addition nothing to take that material from which sample taken was one which recovered from the appellant. Argued that police officials had no authority to conduct any such search or seizure. Lastly submits that incident of the year 1984 the appellant remained in custody for about 25 days - cement control order rescinded in 1991, so now after 21 years, only sentence of undergone shall serve the purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor states that though landlord PW-10 has been declared hostile but other witnesses have deposed of the premises and this cement being in possession of the appellant. 7. Thoughtfully considering all the arguments, gone through the record. 8. The search of the shop/godown was conducted by PW-5 who was accompanied by Head Constables PW-5 and PW-6 Motbirs PW-1 and PW-2 also speak of appellant's presence and possession of premises from where 321 bags recovered. Recovery of 218 bags from residential premises is supported and proved by PW-2. Dhanraj PW-3 in very positive terms state that the residential house is owned by him and the room was rented out to appellant. PW-3 also depose that in the room, appellant sometimes used to store cement and sometimes gur. 9. Therefore from possession of appellant recovery of cement bags stands proved. Appellant possessed cement without licence and in violation of Cement Control Licencing Order so is rightly convicted. 10. The incident is of the year 1984 to which 27 years have elapsed. PW-3 also depose that in the room, appellant sometimes used to store cement and sometimes gur. 9. Therefore from possession of appellant recovery of cement bags stands proved. Appellant possessed cement without licence and in violation of Cement Control Licencing Order so is rightly convicted. 10. The incident is of the year 1984 to which 27 years have elapsed. The Control order is not in force after 1991. A look at the records reveals that appellant arrested on 20.3.1984 was released on 4.4.1984 thus in custody for a period of 16 days. 11. In the totality of these circumstances and facts, now it seems just to reduce the period of substantive sentence awarded to that of period undergone while enhancing fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 12. Accordingly, reducing sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is partly allowed. 13. The conviction of appellant Amrit Lal S/o Hukum Chand for the offence punishable under Section 7 (for violation of Rajasthan Cement Licence and Control Order, 1974) under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (Special Case No. 8/1986 - Sriganganagar - date of decision 14.12.1988) is upheld. The sentence awarded is altered to that of simple imprisonment of period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo ten days simple imprisonment. Fine to be deposited on or before 28.2.2011 in trial Court failing which appellant to undergo sentence awarded in default.Appeal partly allowed. *******