- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-1-84 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 7-1-83 passed by Judicial Magistrate City/special Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpuf by which the revisionist was convicted under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act and sen tenced to three months rigorous imprison ment and to a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year. In appeal, it was directed that in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(2.) THIS revision was admitted on the question of sentence only. The revision was listed for hearing on 25-2-99 but none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing the Additional Government Advocate, the judgment was reserved. Later on the learned counsel for the revisionist appeared and on his re quest and undertaking that he will argue the case it was directed to be put up on the next date. On that date the learned counsel for the revisionist did not appear but a request for adjournment was made on his behalf. In view of the pendency of revision since 1984 and in view of earlier adjourn ment sought prayer for adjournment was refused and the judgment was reserved. Despite the fact that judgment was reserved on 26-2-99, till today no prayer was made by the learned counsel advance ingargument. After having gone through the judgment I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction which was recorded on appreciation of the evidence and in accordance with law.
(3.) THE revisionist was convicted for breach of the old Control Order in not obtaining licence for the year 1978-79. THE revision has remained pending for no fault of the revisionist. It would not be proper to send the revisionist to jail after such a long time. It is true that a minimum sentence of three months has been provided in the Essential Commodities Act but the proviso empowered the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months for any adequate and special reason to be men tioned in the judgment. In view of this provision and considering that there are adequate and special reasons for not send ing the revisionist to jail after such a long time, I think proper to modify the sen tence to the sentence already undergone and to fine of Rs. 10. 000/ -. THE order is modified accordingly. In default of pay ment of fine, the revisionist shall undergo imprisonment for three months. Revision partly allowed. .;