JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. 1. In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. in Spl. Criminal Case No. 205/1996 whereby and whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction u/s. Section Sentence Fine sentence 3/7 of the EC Act RI for 2 years Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine RI for 3 months 2. In brief the prosecution story is that one person namely Dwarika Prasad was the registered owner of a tempo bearing registration No. MP/27/B-1586. He had appointed appellant as driver for the tempo. On 17.08.1996 co-accused Prahlad approached Dwarika Prasad and told him that he has a drum of kerosine which to be delivered at Ashok Petrol Pump. Dwarika Prasad asked the appellant to go along with tempo. Co-accused Prahlad loaded 200 ltr kerosene on the tempo and asked the appellant to deliver it at Ashok Petrol Pump. On the secret information of PW-2 Sub Inspector B.S. Kerketta seized the tempo along with 200 litres kerosene from appellant at Ashok Petrol Pump. He had no licence for keeping kerosene. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against him and co-accused Prahlad under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called as EC Act). Trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act against appellant and co-accused Prahlad. They abjured allegation levelled against them and faced trial. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. They did not examine any witness on their defence. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant as aforesaid however acquitted co-accused Prahlad from the charge punishable under section 3/7 of the EC Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal raising various grounds. 4. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The evidence of investigating officer does not inspire confidence. Another seizure witness Ramkumar has not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances appellant may be acquitted from the charge punishable u/s 3/7 of the Act of 1955. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on clinching evidence led by the prosecution. The evidence of investigating officer does not inspire confidence. Another seizure witness Ramkumar has not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances appellant may be acquitted from the charge punishable u/s 3/7 of the Act of 1955. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on clinching evidence led by the prosecution. He supported the aforesaid conviction and sentence and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court. 6. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Vyapari Anugyapan Aadesh, 1979 (in brevity Aadesh 1979) which reads as under:- ^^2- ifjHkk"kk,a & bl vkns'k esa] tc rd fd lanHkZ ls vU;Fkk visf{kr u gks %& ¼d½ ^^O;kikjh** ls vfHkÁsr gS dksbZ ,slk O;fDr tks fdjksflu ds Ø;&foØ; ;k foØ; ds fy, laxzg.k dk dkjckj] pkgs Fkksd O;kikjh vkaf'kd Fkksd O;kikjh ;k QqVdj foØsrk ds :i esa pkgs fdlh vU; dkjckj ds lkFk la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkdr% djrk gS vkSj mlds varxZr mldk Áfrfuf/k ;k vfHkdrkZ 'kkfey gSA fdarq mlds varxZr ,slh rsy daifu;ka tks bl vkns'k ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V gS rFkk ,sls laxzg.k fMiksa ;k laLFkkiuk,a tgka ls lk/kkj.k turk dks dksbZ foØ; ugha fd;k tkrk gS] 'kkfey ugha gSA** 7. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Aadesh 1979, which reads as under:- ^^3- O;kikfj;ksa dk vuqKkiu & ¼1½ dksbZ Hkh O;fDr vuqKkiu Ákf/kdkjh }kjk bl laca/k esa tkjh dh x;h vuqKfIr ds fuca/kuksa rFkk 'krksZ ds v/khu rFkk muds vuqlkj gh fdjksflu O;kikjh ds :i esa dkjckj djsxk vU;Fkk ughaA** 8. PW-2 B.S. Kerketta, the then Sub Inspector says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that on 17.08.1996 after receiving the information from informant, he had seized one tempo along with a drum containing 200 ltr kerosene from the appellant. 9. PW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that he had handed over his Bajaj tempo and appellant to co-accused Prahlad. 10. PW-3 M.L. Sharma, the then food inspector says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that as per the direction of Food Officer he had sold 200 ltr kerosene seized in Criminal Case No. 36/96 Crime No. 139/95 and deposited the sale amount in treasury. 11. 10. PW-3 M.L. Sharma, the then food inspector says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that as per the direction of Food Officer he had sold 200 ltr kerosene seized in Criminal Case No. 36/96 Crime No. 139/95 and deposited the sale amount in treasury. 11. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it can be said that PW-2 B.S. Kerketta, PW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu had stated aforesaid statements on account of some alleged previous enmity with appellant. 12. Alleged FIR Ex. P-6 has been lodged on very day. In Ex. P-6 it has been mentioned that from the possession of appellant one tempo along with a drum containing kerosene 200 ltrs was seized. 13. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it can be said that Ex.P-6 is fabricated or lodged with intention to falsely implicate appellant in alleged crime. 14. There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that aforesaid statements of PW-2 B.S. Kerketta, PW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu, PW-3 M.L. Sharma, alleged seizure Ex.P-5, alleged photocopy of memorandum of Food Officer Ex.P-9 are not simple, not natural, not normal. Thus this Court believes on them. 15. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 10-C of the EC Act which is extracted below:- "10C. Presumption of Culpable Mental State. (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defense for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation - In this section "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to the proved only when the Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability." 16. In the case in hand appellant failed to give reasonable explanation for possession of aforesaid kerosene. 17. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to the proved only when the Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability." 16. In the case in hand appellant failed to give reasonable explanation for possession of aforesaid kerosene. 17. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court presumes under Section 10-C of the EC Act that there was existence of the culpable mental state of appellant. 18. After appreciation of the evidence discussed here-before, this Court finds that prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was dealer and was engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of kerosene. 19. After appreciation of the evidence discussed here-before this Court finds that prosecution has succeeded to prove the charge punishable under Section 3/7 of the EC Act against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this Court finds that trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the EC Act. Hence this Court affirms the aforesaid conviction of the appellant. 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Sundararajan, S. Chinnasamy vs. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore, (2006) Law Suit (SC) 1235, observed in para 24 of which is relevant and quoted below:- "24. 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. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment." 21. The coordinate bench of this Court In Gopal Prasad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) Law Suit (Chh) 230, observed in para 12 and 13 relevant portions are quoted below:- "12. The fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment." 21. The coordinate bench of this Court In Gopal Prasad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) Law Suit (Chh) 230, observed in para 12 and 13 relevant portions are quoted below:- "12. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, prima facie that, this is a fit case where lenient view may be taken so that the appellant may not commit any likewise offence in future. 13. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. Judgment of conviction awarded by the trial Court under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act is hereby affirmed. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the substantive jail sentence of 3 months awarded to the appellant by the trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for till rising of the Court and sentence of fine of Rs. 500 awarded by the trial Court is enhanced up to Rs. 5000........." 22. As per the provisions of Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, minimum imprisonment of 3 months has been provided however Court may on the adequate and special reason impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 3 months. 23. In the case in hand, about 22 years have passed after the incident. He was in jail from 18.08.1996 to 27.08.1996. At the time of incident, appellant was aged about 30 years, now he is about 52 years old. Now he is in mainstream of society. Sending him to jail would disturb him as well as his family members' life. Hence, no useful purpose would be served if he is sent to jail after 22 years of the incident. More over, he was found with 200 ltr kerosene which is not the huge quantity. Looking to these circumstances and observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R. Sunderrajan (supra) and decision of this Court in Gopal Prasad (supra), this Court is of the opinion that cause of justice would be sub-served, if RI of 2 years is reduced to the sentence for the period already undergone by him however fine of Rs. 1000/- may be suitably enhanced. 24. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 1000/- may be suitably enhanced. 24. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of the appellant for RI for 2 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 1,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months. 25. Two months' time from date of this order is granted to appellant for depositing the fine amount. The fine amount deposited earlier by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 26. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as per requirement of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C.