JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1991 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred as E.C. Act), Fatehpur in Special Trial No. 8 of 1989, (State Vs. Siya Ram) whereby the appellant was convicted under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of this case are as follows-: 4. That accused-appellant-Siya Ram was an authorized retail distributor of sugar. That on 21.3.1989 at about 4 P.M., the Supply Inspector, B.N. Pandey (PW-4) inspected the shop of accused-appellant where he has not found any display board or rate board of the stocks as required by Section 4 of Essential Commodities Act (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. That appellant was found flouting the provisions of Sections 5, 19 and 21 (c) of U.P. Food Grains and Other Essential Articles Distribution Order, 1977 by refusing to distribute sugar to the card holders as well as by not making entry in the ration card regarding issuance of sugar. That as per sell register sugar was distributed to the card holders but in the ration cards (Ex. Ka-3 to Ka-7) of the card holders no where mentioned about distribution of sugar to them. That there were only 6 quintal of sugar and sell registered shows distribution of 6 quintals, 74 Kgms and 750 gms sugar. That after seeing all these defects, Supply Inspector had lodged a report (Ex. Ka-10) at Hathgaon, Police Station and on that basis Chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-11) was registered against the appellant. That after completion of investigation charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-15) was filed before the District Magistrate against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denied the charge levelled against him and claim to be tried. 5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e. PW-1/Bhikkhu, PW-2/Bhullu, PW-3/Mohd. Amid , PW4/Supply Inspector, B. N. Pandey. 6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that Supply Inspector had inspected his shop at about 5.30 P.M. and at that time he has gone to attend natures call and the stock board as well as rate board were kept inside the shop. Amid , PW4/Supply Inspector, B. N. Pandey. 6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that Supply Inspector had inspected his shop at about 5.30 P.M. and at that time he has gone to attend natures call and the stock board as well as rate board were kept inside the shop. He further stated that due to heavy rush of Holi festival, the stock registered could not be maintained and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the Village Pradhan. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to enmity with the village Pradhan false and frivolous F.I.R. lodged against the appellant. It is next submitted that due to Holi festival and rush on the shop, he could not maintain the stock register. It is next submitted that appellant is a speciallyabled person (his right leg is mutated below the knee), presently his age is about 72 year, during trial he was in jail for some days, and no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail to serve the sentence for six months rigorous imprisonment. It is next submitted that applicant's detention period is in jail about 20 days. He further submitted that ends of justice will be served if custodial punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced to period already undergone by him in jail. 8. Sri G.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the appellant submitting that there are several irregularities in the fair-price shop of the appellant. He next submitted that charges levelled against the appellant are serious in nature. 9. Apart from Supply Inspector, public witnesses were also produced by the prosecution and by clinching the evidence, prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the appellant, and there is no occasion to take lenient view against the appellant and there is no need to interfere in the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 10. After perusing the records and judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, I am of the view that since the appellant is an old age person and ends of justice will be met if custodial sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to period already undergone by him in jail and a reasonable amount of fine should be imposed upon him. 11. 11. In the circumstances mentioned above, and considering the fact that the appellant is about 72 years old, the period of custodial sentence is directed to be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in jail. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-which is increased from fine of Rs. 500/-, failing which, he will have to undergo imprisonment for remainder period. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire fine within a month from today in the court concerned. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Special Judge concerned, for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further necessary action. Accused-appellant is on bail he need not to surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.