D.L.MEHTA, J. - (1.)FIRM M/s Prakash Chandra Ajmera, was a licensee for sale of kerosene oil under the provisions of Rajasthan Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1971, Shri Dev Bux, PW 5 Pravartan Adhikari (Enforcement Officer), at Kishangarh received soma complaints and checked the stock of the kerosene oil, and found that the balance of the kerosene oil as per the stock register is only 5 litres. The stock register of the firm was seized. PW 5, found that the stock register has not been maintained properly and does (sic not) give correct picture of the stock. Sales Register Ex. P 17, was also checked, and it was found that on 19th March, 1974, only 283 litres kerosene has been sold but the total has been shown 346 litres, and thus there is a mistake in total. In Ex. P 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 the mistakes were detected. Ordinarily the stock must be about 1450 litres of kerosene, but it is was not found so after the correction of totalling mistake.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued the case vehimently and has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner. At the outset he has raised some legal and technical objections. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was responsible for the management of the affairs of the partnership firm and he was managing the affairs of the firm The second objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is necessary that the partnership firm should be arrayed as one of the accused.
He has submitted that the courts below have committed errors in convicting the accused petitioner Under Section 7 and in the last learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty then the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, read with Section 360 Cr. PC should be extended. During the course of arguments it was pointed out by the court that generally the court does not extend the benefit of the probation specially in the matter of economic offences.

(3.)THE petitioner moved an application through his Counsel and prayed that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for l0 days and the matter is pending since 1974 he has prayed in alternative that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty then instead of sending the petitioner to the jail after a period of 10 years fine should be enhanced and the petitioner should not be sent to the jail.