ORDER

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs 10,000. On appeal being preferred, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of fine, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to three months. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are first offenders and in the facts and circumstances of the case they should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to three months without recording any reasons, as required under Section 361 of the Code, which lays down that for special reasons to be recorded, a court can refuse to release a person on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of the Code. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while upholding the conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the appellants, sentence ofimprisonment awarded against them is set aside and the trial court is directed to deal with them under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.