JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The Appellants assail their conviction u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973, Clauses 12(i) and (ii) and 13 of the Orissa Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealer's (Licensing) Order, 1977 and Conditions 2(b), 3(b) and 7 of the Licence granted in favour of the Firm M/s. Srinivas Oil and Flour Mill by the Collector, Koraput. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.1988 at about 1.30 P.M. the Inspector of Supplies along with the Marketing Inspector checked the books of accounts and stock of M/s. Srinivas Oil and Flour Mill, Nadiabado Street, Jeypore (hereinafter referred to as the "Firm") and found that the accused S. Prabhakar Rao, one of the partners of the Firm was present and showed the books of accounts and stock. On verification of the stock book maintained till 16.11.1988, it was found that the closing balance on 16.11.1988 was 20 Kgs. of niger seeds and 11 tins and 13 Kgs. of niger oil. However on actual physical verification, the stock was found to be 23 quintals and 20 Kgs. of niger seeds and 11 tins and 13 Kgs. of niger oil. Thus, there was an excess stock of niger seeds. The stock was therefore seized in presence of the witnesses and was kept in zima of P. Viravadra Rao. On the same day at about 4.00 P.M. the Supply Inspector along with others checked the books of accounts and stock of the said Firm and at the time of checking accused S. Venketa Rao stated that he was the Managing Partner of the said Firm and produced the books of accounts. The Firm stored different stocks in the go-down situated at Nadiabado Street, Jeypore. Besides the go-down the Firm had also a shop-cum-show room in Daily Market in Stall No. 24 where they were selling essential commodities. On verification at the go-down situated at Nadiabado Street, the checking party found three tins of til oil and at Daily Market found different stocks as per the seizure list. The Firm in the name of M/s. Suru Neelakantham and Sons, Jeypore, have been issued licence bearing Nos. On verification at the go-down situated at Nadiabado Street, the checking party found three tins of til oil and at Daily Market found different stocks as per the seizure list. The Firm in the name of M/s. Suru Neelakantham and Sons, Jeypore, have been issued licence bearing Nos. 100/88-89 for Jeyproe P.S., 101/88-89 for Borigumma P.S., 102/88-89 for Pottangi P.S., 103/88-89 for Chitrakonda P.S., 104/88-89 for Machkund P.S., 105/88-89 for Padwa P.S. and 106/88-89 for Boipariguda P.S. by the Collector under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeks and Edible Oil Dealer's (Licensing) Order, 1977. The prosecution further alleges on that checking the wholesale stock register and the stock held in their show room it was found to be discrepant. Besides the stock of green gram, green gramdal, Biridal, etc. were not accounted for. On further checking it was found that the stock and Price Declaration Board affixed in the show room was not prominently displaced although 25 items of essential commodities were found to be in the show room. 3. The prosecution further alleges that the licensee was transacting the business in the Municipal Stall No. 24 at Daily Market, Jeypore, which was not the specified go-down of the licensee. Further the licensee did not furnish the information in the cash bill as required under Condition No. 7 of the licence. On further checking the go-down situated at Nadiabado Street, it was found that three tins of til oil, which were kept in the go down, were not displayed in the Stock Declaration Board. The fortnightly return in Form 'C' has not been submitted by the firm for the period from 1.11.1988 to 15.11.1988. Hence prosecution report was submitted against the Appellants. 4. The defence took the plea of denial. Their specific plea is that the shop situated in Daily Market Stall No. 24 is the separate retail business of accused S. Venketa Rao and excess stock of niger seeds found in the Nadiabado Street Mill premises was purchased on the date of checking. Since the shop in Stall No. 24 is the separate business of the accused S. Venketa Rao, he has not contravened any of the provisions of Orissa Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 or Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealer's (Licensing) Order, 1977. 5. The prosecution examined two witnesses on its behalf and the defence examined two. 5. The prosecution examined two witnesses on its behalf and the defence examined two. On behalf of the prosecution number of documents have been exhibited and on behalf of the defence only the licence led into evidence as Ext.A. 6. Learned Special Judge, Jeypore, having considered the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and has convicted the accused persons for the offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has sentenced each of the Appellants to undergo R.I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 7. In course of hearing of the Criminal Appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellants did not assail the finding of facts rather submitted that in the meantime more than two decades have elapsed and since the offence is mainly relating to in-proper keeping of accounts and declaration of stocks a lenient view on the quantum of sentence may be taken with the increase in the fine. In the reported case of RPG Life Sciences Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that the incident in that case took place in the year 1985 and the peculiar facts of the case, held that it is not desirable to send the Appellants to jail after a lapse of about 25 years and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court increased the fine amount without imposing any sentence for substantive imprisonment. 8. In this case also it is seen that the occurrence took place on 17.11.1988 and the main allegation against the Appellants are that they have not maintained the books of accounts and have not displayed the stocks in the Board, so the offences alleged are more or less technically in nature. There is no allegation that the Appellants were resorting to black-marketing nor a previous conviction has been proved against them. 9. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual backgrounds and the case aforesighted, this Court comes to the conclusion that no useful purpose shall be served by imposing substantive sentence of imprisonment requiring the Appellants to be imprisoned. Accordingly, this Court directs the Appellants to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 within a period of six weeks from today. Accordingly, this Court directs the Appellants to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 within a period of six weeks from today. In case of failure of payment of fine, this order would be of no avail to the accused persons and they will have to serve out the sentences as directed by the learned trial court. The Appellants are directed to appear before the learned Special Court on 15.2.2011 for the purpose of the sentence. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of.