JUDGMENT 1. - The above misc. petition and the revision petition are inter-related, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.REVISION PETITION NO. 314/97 2. The present revision petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Udaipur by which he discharged the accused respondent-Chatar Lal. 3. The present revision petition arises in following circumstances: (i) On 14.11.1995, Enforcement Inspector, Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar lodged a written report at the Police Station Dhanmandi, Udaipur against Mangi Lal who was proprietor of Shri Nath Somani Transport Company and against Chatar Lal, who was Chief Executive of the Transport Company stating that between the period from 2.11.1995 to 3.11.1995, godown and premises of Shri Nath Somani Transport Company, situated at 14/50, Gadiya Devri, Dhanmandi were inspected and during inspection three cylinders filled with LPG Gas and 22 empty cylinders in total 25 cylinders were found and out of that 25 cylinders, bilties for 18 cylinders were also found and thus, they were doing illegal transportation of LPG Gas cylinders for which they were not authorised and thus, they violated the provisions of petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1993). 4. On the basis of that report, a regular FIR was chalked out by the police and after investigation police came to the conclusion that accused-respondents kept 25 cylinders for which they were not having any licence as required by provisions of Order of 1993 and thus, they violated provisions of Order of 1993 and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. The learned Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act) Cases, Udaipur at the time of hearing of charges, discharged the accused-respondent Chater Lal for violation of provisions of Order of 1993 vide order dated 28.2.1997 inter-alia holding that: (i) The proprietor of that Transport Company of which premises were inspected by the Enforcement Inspector has not been made accused. (ii) For transportation of cylinders in question, bilties were found as consumers gave the cylinders for transportation to the Transport Company on their own accord. Under these circumstances, storage of cylinders cannot be termed as violation of provisions of Order of 1993 as there is no evidence to the effect that they were being transported in black-market. 6. (ii) For transportation of cylinders in question, bilties were found as consumers gave the cylinders for transportation to the Transport Company on their own accord. Under these circumstances, storage of cylinders cannot be termed as violation of provisions of Order of 1993 as there is no evidence to the effect that they were being transported in black-market. 6. Aggrieved from that order of discharge dated 28.2.1997, State has filed this revision petition. 7. In my considered opinion, after perusing the reasons assigned by the Learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases, Udaipur in the impugned order dated 28.2.1997, it does not appear that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any mistake or irregularity in passing the impugned order and the order is based on correct appreciation of fact as well as law and it does not require any interference by this Court and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.MISC. PETITION NO. 683/99 8. So far as above misc. petition is concerned, it may be stated here that by order dated 6.1.1996, the Collector, Udiapur seized 25 cylinders recovered from the Transport Company between the period from 2.11.1995 to 3.11.1995. Aggrieved from that order dated 6.1.1996, the respondents in this petition filed an appeal before the learned Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act) Cases, Udaipur and the learned Special Judge disposed of that appeal vide judgment dated 19.5.1999 holding that since the accused-respondent Chater Lal in revision was discharged, therefore, effect of that order would be that these cylinders should have been returned to the person from whose possession, they were taken. Thus, he allowed the appeal. 9. Aggrieved from the order dated 19.5.1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, this misc. petition has been filed. 10. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in this petition. When the accused-respondent Chatear Lal was discharged, therefore, if cylinders in question were returned to their owner, by doing so, the learned Special Judge has committed no mistake and the present misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the revision Petition No. 314/97 and the Misc. Petition No. 683/99 are dismissed.Revision Petition and Petition dismissed. *******