Judgment A.C. Goyal, J.-The facts in brief giving rise to this S.B. Criminal Revision are that on 4-8-1999 Sub-Divisional Officer Nawalgarh, District, Jhunjhunu seized nine cylinders on the ground that they were being transported to the village Jhanjhar through a camel cart. The owner of the Camel Cart was Sh. Megharam who was having no valid permission from M/s. Chokhani Gas Agency for transportation of the cylinders. The complaint by the Sub-Divisional Officer was filed under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (in short the Act, 1955) before District Collector, Jhunjhunu on account of violation of Sub-clauses (2) and (4) of Clause (3) of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1993 (in short the order “1993”) with a prayer of confiscation of the cylinders. 2. TheCollector, Jhunjhunu issued show cause notice to Sh. Megharam under Section 6-B of the Act, 1955. Sh. Megharam as well as nine petitioners before this Court submitted their reply that the petitioners were consumers having gas connection from M/s. Chokhani Gas Agency and they got the cylinders refilled on that day and they were resident of village Jhanjhar and also reside Nawalgarh for their livelihood and Sh. Megharam was carrying on these cylinders to village Jhanjhar on their behalf and no violation of Sub-clauses (2) and (4) of Clause (3) of the Order 1993 took place. Learned District Collector, Jhunjhunu vide order dated 16-11-1999 confiscated the cylinders. Appeal against this order was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu vide order dated 27-6-2000. Hence this revision. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. The provisions of Sub-clauses (2) and (4) of Clause (3) of the Order 1993 are as under :-- (2) No distributor of a Government Oil Company shall supply liquified petroleum gas filled in cylinders to any person unless he holds a valid authorisation from the Government Oil Company. (4) No transporter or delivery person shall deliver or cause to be delivered liquified petroleum gas either in cylinders or in bulk to any person other than the consumer for whom the liquified petroleum gas is mean for. 4. Admittedly the petitioners were neither distributors nor transporters, hence Sub-clauses (2) & (4) are not attracted against the petitioners. (4) No transporter or delivery person shall deliver or cause to be delivered liquified petroleum gas either in cylinders or in bulk to any person other than the consumer for whom the liquified petroleum gas is mean for. 4. Admittedly the petitioners were neither distributors nor transporters, hence Sub-clauses (2) & (4) are not attracted against the petitioners. Thus the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is in accordance with law that the petitioners did not violate the provisions of Sub-clauses (2) and (4) of Clause (3) of the Order 1993. 5. Normally the evidence is not appreciated in revision and particularly when both the Courts below give concurrent findings. But the present case is a case or misreading of the entire evidence. On a bare perusal of checking-memo prepared by SDM, Nawalgarh at the spot on 4-8-1999, it is evident that eleven cylinders were being carried in a Camel Cart. Two cylinders were not seized on the ground that two persons name Prabhu Singh and Madanlal were found resident of village Jhanjhar but the remaining nine consumers were not found that resident of village Jhanjhar, although cash memos and consumer pass-books were shown to SDM at the spot making it clear that these nine petitioners were consumers who got these cylinders refilled from M/s. Chokhani Gas Agency at Nawalgarh on the same day and entries were made in their pass-books. Further, Enforcement Officer, Nawalgarh conducted enquiry and came to this conclusion that the petitioners were resident of Nawalgarh as well as Jhanjhar and a certificate to this effect was also issued by the concerned Sarpanch of village Jhanjhar. In view of such evidence the findings recorded by the District Collector as well as Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu cannot be sustained being contrary to the evidence on the record. It is also significant to observe that even FIR was not lodged at concerned police station. 6. Consequently, the order of District Collector, Jhunjhunu dated 16-11-1999 and order dated 27-6-2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu are set aside and it is ordered that the cylinders shall be returned to the petitioners.