- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. By this revision revisionist Mohd. Husain, a resident of Usahet in district Badaun has challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) BOTH the lower courts have accepted the prosecution Story that on 7th December, 1981, at about 2. 45 p. m. , after information that the revisionist was hoarding Cement in his shop and was selling the same in black-market the raiding party raided his shop and recovered 51 bags of Cement. Defence of the revisionist was that it was "sagol" Cement and was stocked for personal use of the revisioni&t. BOTH the lower Courts believed prosecution evidence and disbalieved the defence case. They found him guilty of hoarding and selliug cement in contravention of the U. P. Cement Control Order, 1973 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500. Consistent findings recorded by the two lower courts cannot be disturbed in revision. Fact remains that the recovery was from shop which the learned counsel for the revisionist asserted to be baithak. It is not unusual that in BCusbas and villages' shops are held in Baithaks'. Definition of Cement in sub- clause (4) of Clause 2 of the U. P. Cement Contrjl Order, 1973 is very wide. It means any variety of Cement manufactured in India and includes Portland pozzolana Cement blast, furmace stag cement, water-proof (hydro-phobic) Cement, rapid hardening Cement, law heat Cement masoury Cement and high strength ordinary portland cement but dose not include oil well cement and white and coloured Cement (other than grey-portland Cement ). In view of this definition, the defence case of 'sagol' Cement can not at all be accepted. At any rate, there is reliable evidence that the revisionist was selling Cement in black-market. I hold that no interference is possible on the point of conviction. The case falls under clause (ii) of Section 7 (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act. This clause prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than three months but it may extend to seven years. Con sidering the lapse of time since the offence, only the minimum sentence was awarded. In this revision this Court is helpless even on the point of sentence.
(3.) IN result, this revision has no force. Revision is dismissed. At the time of pronouncement of Judgment by the lower appellate Court revisionist was absent. IN this Court he was required to furnish certificate that he has surrendered and is in jail. He did not furnish any certificate nor applied for bail. He shall be taken into custody for serving out his sentence, if not yet taken into custody and if fine has not yet been recovered from him, the same shall be recovered from him. Revision dismissed. .;