Indu Prabha Singh, J.
1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. The prosecution case as stated in the written report dated 25-4-1989 given by A.S.I. Baidnath Singh of Parihar P.S. is that for checking of smuggling of petroleum products from India to Nepal, informant Baidnath Singh, A.S.I., Constable Shiladhar Mishra and Chbwkidar, Badri Paswan were on duty at village Dharharwa near Dharharwa Kuti situated just by the side of Nepal Border. It has been stated that the abovenamed persons sat in a Kuti and they were Watching the situation and at about 4.30 a.m. they saw 4 to 5 persons coming towards Nepal after taking diesel kept in tins and jerricons on bicycle and on their heads. The informant and his other companions who were on duty, chased the aforesaid smugglers and blackmarketeers and out of them they caught Jai Narain Dubey alias Jiratia of village Dharharwa (appellant) along with 60 litres diesel kept in 2 jerricans. It has been stated that other smugglers fled away after throwing their bicycle, tins, jerrican etc. and they proceeded in Nepal territory and they raised alarm as dacoit-dacoit. Appellant-Jai Narain Dubey had confessed his guilt and he showed the big jerricans in which 50 litres diesel was kept and in another jerrican 30 litres diesel was kept and he admitted that the aforesaid diesel was kept for smuggling and black marketing in Nepal in the night. It has been stated that aforesaid diesel along with jerricans, tins and bicycles were seized in presence of independent witnesses Digambar Jha and Suraj Rai of village Dharharwa and seizure list was prepared in presence of abovenamed witnesses who also signed over the same. One copy of the seizure list was handed over to accused-Jai Narain Dubey who also put his signature over the same. It has been further stated that on query made by the informant Jai Narain Dubey informed that he purchased 130 litres diesel from Sursand Petrol Pump three days earlier from the date of alleged occurrence and kept the same in the house of appellant-Arjun Sah. He further disclosed that he was carrying 140 litres diesel to Nepal territory for black marketing the same after taking the same from the house of appellant-Arjun Sah. It has been alleged that both the appellants have violated the provisions of Section 3 of the E.C. Act. On the basis of written report Parihar P.S. Case No. 40/89 was registered at Parihar Police Station on 25-4-1989. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants, cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above.
The appellants pleaded not guilty.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 is Shiladhar Mishra, P.W. 2 is Baidnath Singh, informant. P.W. 3, Badri Paswan, P.W.' 4 Digambar Jha and P.W. 5 Suruj Rai have been declared hostile. P.W. 6 is Bashishtha Nr. Singh, I.O. of the case.
4. P.W. 2, the informant has supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. According to him on the date of occurrence he along with his companions was sitting near a kuti for checking smuggling of petroleum products from India to Nepal and the members of the raiding party concealed themselves in the said kuti and he saw about 4 to 5 persons carrying diesel ' on bicycles and on their heads and in their hands and the members of the raiding party chased the smugglers at about 4.30 a.m. and four persons who were carrying diesel in jerricans on their bicycles and on their heads fled away after throwing the diesel kept in jerricans and bicycles and escaped in Nepal territory but accused-Jai Narain Dubey was caught red handed along with 60 litres diesel kept in 2 jerricans. He has stated that the said accused was carrying one jerrican on his head and one jerkin in his hand and he disclosed that 80 litres diesel was kept in two jerkins and the same were lying in Ketwani near Kuti. He further stated that he arrested accused-Jai Narain Dubey and seized huge quantity of diesel and bicycles and prepared seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses Digambar Jha and Suruj Rai who also signed over the same as witnesses, and a copy of the seizure list was handed over to accused-Jai Narain Dubey who also signed over the same on receipt. When query was made the appellant-Jai Nr. Dubey confessed his guilt and also disclosed the name of the other accused-Arjun Sah from where he had purchased diesel. On enquiry this appellant disclosed that Arjun was also involved in smuggling and black marketing of petroleum products along with him and he kept the products in his house and also financed him.
5. P.W. 1 has also corroborated the version of the informant P.W. 2. P.W. 6 I.O. of this case has also supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, on 25-4-1989 the informant and other Constables caught hold of the appellant and huge quantity of diesel was recovered. According to him, 80 ltrs. diesel was kept in three jerricans 50 ltres. in one jerrican 32 ltrs. in two jerricans and 10 ltrs. in two jerricans. According to him the informant submitted written report on the basis of which F.I.R. was drawn up and the case was registered. He also inspected the place of occurrence which was at village Dharaharawa near Kuti.
6. On appreciation of the evidence so adduced the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
7. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence took place in 1989 and appellant No. 1 has remained in jail for about six months and appellant No. 2 has remained in jail for about one month. There is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against them. Therefore it requires consideration on the point of sentence. Having regard to the submission raised on behalf of the appellants and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of these appellants is reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed.