JUDGMENT 1. :- The agony of an average consumer was disturbing me throughout while I was in the process of thinking to decide this bail application. General complaints are often heard against the distributors about irregular supply of "Liquified Petroleum Gas" (in short 'Cooking Gas' or L.P.G.). Complaints are also made that the consumers do not get cylinders as per standard weight specified in Schedule-A of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation, Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Gas Distribution Order'). 2. Shortage of coal, wood and kerosene etc. has made the people more dependent on cooking gas for domestic and other use. Some times, artificial scarcity of cooking gas is created by unscrupluous hoarders and distributors for their undue benefit. With a view to check these unwarranted anti-social activities and to ensure adequate supply and equitable distribution amongst the consumers, appropriate steps have been taken by promulgating Gas Distribution Order by the Central Government and Rajasthan Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990 (for short "Licensing Order") by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. These two orders provide a mechanism for proper supply and equitable distribution of cooking gas to the consumers under Public Distribution System. In the Gas Distribution Order provisions have been made to check unauthorised possession, supply and consumption of under section 43S Criminal Procedure Code cooking gas and restrictions have been imposed on filling any gas cylinder or transfer of gas from one cylinder to another cylinder or from one container to another container, unless authorised by the Chief Controller of Explosives. Similarly, care has been taken that gas is sold or distributed as per the standard weight specified in the Schedule annexed with the Order. Several restrictions have been imposed on the distributors with an object to see that proper supply and equitable distribution of gas is made to the consumers. They have been put under a statutory obligation of displaying stock and price of gas and to maintain register and proper accounts of daily purchase, sale and storage of the cooking gas at business premises every day. They have been put under a statutory obligation of displaying stock and price of gas and to maintain register and proper accounts of daily purchase, sale and storage of the cooking gas at business premises every day. The Officers, specified in clause-11 of the Order, have been given power of entry, search and seizure with a view to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Order and for taking action against all concerned who violate the provisions of the Order or conditions of the licence. Under the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990, no person can carry on business of cooking gas except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority. Further, the Licencing Authority has been empowered to suspend or cancel the licence, if any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence. Thus, the above referred two Orders provide various checks and controls on a dealer/distributor on the one hand; supervisory powers have been given to the Officers of ensure that provisions of the Order are properly complied with and consumers get the cooking gas regularly and of standard weight. Inspite of various stringent provisions contained in the Orders, I am of the confirmed view that unless the Officers, entrusted with the duty of supervision, feel their accountability and perform their duties honestly, the grievance of the average consumer cannot be redressed. 3. Be this as it may. Adverting to the question of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, necessary facts may be narrated: Additional District Supply Officer, Jaipur Shri Suresh Chandra Verina made a report at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, on 7.3.95 to the effect that on getting information, he reached at an open ground near Laxmi Mandir Cinema, alongwith District Supply Officer and other personnel of the Department and found one Dayal Singh and ten other persons who were taking out gas from Gas-cylinders. They seized 286 re-fill vouchers issued by M/s Tej Enterprises; 227 cylinders containing cooking gas and 37 empty cylinders. Out of 227 gas cylinders, 169 cylinders contained proper weight as per the Schedule while 58 cylinders were found under-weight to the extent of 400 gms to 4.900 Kg. gas. They seized 286 re-fill vouchers issued by M/s Tej Enterprises; 227 cylinders containing cooking gas and 37 empty cylinders. Out of 227 gas cylinders, 169 cylinders contained proper weight as per the Schedule while 58 cylinders were found under-weight to the extent of 400 gms to 4.900 Kg. gas. According to the report the acts of the persons mentioned therein contravened the provisions of the aforesaid two Orders. On the basis of the above report Crime No. 139/95 was registered Under section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 379 and 120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar. Shri Dayal Singh and the labourers, mentioned in the report, were arrested by the Police. They have been released on bail by this Court on 15.3.95. 4. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur and the same was rejected on 25th March, 1995. Hence, this application for anticipatory bail has been moved before this Court by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Bajwa, appearing for the petitioner, contended that gas cylinders and empty cylinders were seized by the Officers of the Food and Supply Department from an open place which is 2 K.Mtr. away from the premises of M/s Tej Enterprise. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner or other persons of M/s Tej Enterprises had no direct control on the persons who have been named in the F.I.R. as the labourers were employed by the Contractor, Dayal Singh who has been given the contract of distribution of gas cylinders to the consumers. That the petitioner had no knowledge about their fraudulent and illegal acts and she cannot be made vicariously liable for their acts. Mr. Bajwa also contended that there was no complaint that any consumer was supplied gas cylinder of less weight. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner is a busy political leader of eminence and she has employed Manager and other persons to look after and supervise the agency work of distribution and she cannot be held criminally liable for any act of the labourers of the contractor which was not with her consent or connivance and to her knowledge even. 6. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri S.R. Yadav, vehemently contended that it was the responsibility of the Proprietor M/s Tej Enterprises to see that gas-cylinders containing standard weight of gas are supplied to the consumers and it cannot be presumed that acts of the labourers and Shri Dayal Singh were not in knowledge of the petitioner. It was also contended that Shri Dayal Singh has admitted in his statement that petitioner was sharing in profit derived from the gas taken out from the cylinders, as such, she is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions and also perused the case diary minutely. 8. At the out-set, it may be stated that after pronouncement of a Bench decision of this Court in Suresh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 R.C.C. 141 = 1985 RLR 422 , it is no more in dispute that the Special Court and the High Court can grant anticipatory bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, though, in such cases anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of course; and discretion should be exercised judicially, sparingly and in exceptional cases. 9. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is a busy political leader of the Congress Party. The evidence collected during investigation show that Dayal Singh was engaged by M/s Tej Enterprises to deliver L.P.G. cylinders to the consumers and as per the terms of the contract he was required to collect filled cylinders at 8 a.m. from Godown Keeper alongwith booking refills. The evidence also shows that one Bajrang Singh was working as Manager of M/s Tej Enterprises and from the statement of Shri Roop Singh, Assistant Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, it is also evident that he used to go to the business premises of M/s Tej Enterprises to give instructions to the employees regarding complaints of the consumers and that most of the complaints related to irregular supply of gas-cylinders. He has also stated that he never found the petitioner at the business premises and through the Manager of the firm, Shri Bajrang Singh, the complaints used to be rectified by him. He has further stated that he did not receive any serious complaint in this connection. He has also stated that he never found the petitioner at the business premises and through the Manager of the firm, Shri Bajrang Singh, the complaints used to be rectified by him. He has further stated that he did not receive any serious complaint in this connection. It is true that there is evidence on record that some complaints were received by the District Supply Officer and the manager of the Indian Oil Corporation that employees of M/s Tej Enterprises used to misbehave the consumers and regular supply of gas cylinders was not being made by them, but this can hardly be a ground to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The remedy for these complaints and irregularities lies in taking administrative action under the Licencing Order-which provides suspension and cancellation of the licence. To hold the petitioner criminally liable vicariously for the acts of others, it is necessary to establish that it was with her consent or connivance and in any case, to her knowledge or that she was getting benefit from the same. The statement of the co-accused can hardly be an evidence against the petitioner to establish him criminal liability. At this stage, no final opinion can be expressed about the criminal liability of the petitioner, but taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstan- ces, specially the fact that the petitioner is a woman and distribution work of the agency was being carried out and managed by the Manager and other employees of M/s Taj Enterprises and further that the arrest of the petitioner is not required for any investigation purpose, I think it just, and proper to make the interim order in favour of the petitioner absolute and grant her anticipatory bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Sint. Sudha Raina Wio Shri Tej Raina shall be released on bail by the S.H.O./Arresting Officer, Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, in F.I.R. No. 139/95 provided she furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, to his satisfaction. The bail shall be subject to following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. 2. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, to his satisfaction. The bail shall be subject to following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. 2. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. 3. That the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Bail granted. *******