( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 6 in S. T. C. No. 3 of 1994 on the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 1998. Like wise Accused No. 3 in the afore said S. T. C. No. 3 of 1994 had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1566 of 1998. The learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 and Exs. P-1 to P-20 came to the conclusion that Accused Nos. 3 and 6 are found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and were convicted and whereas, Accused Nos. 7 and 8 were found not guilty and were acquitted. In view of the fact that Accused No. 3 violated the clause 6 (1) (a) order 6 (1) (c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month and 15 days and Accused No. 6 was found guilty for violation of Order 6 (1) (c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. ( 2 ) MS. Sofia Begum representing Noushad Ali, the counsel representing the appellants made the following submissions. The learned counsel would submit that the accused were initially charged with 6 (1) (3) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988, but, they were convicted under Order 1993, which cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that while conducting search and seizure, the procedure as contemplated by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code) had not been followed. The learned counsel also would submit that the presence of the respectable inhabitants of the locality had not been secured and apart from which, the list of the seized articles also had not been prepared. The learned counsel also would submit that the presence of the respectable inhabitants of the locality had not been secured and apart from which, the list of the seized articles also had not been prepared. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise, Accused No. 3 is the brother of Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 2 is the prime accused whose whereabouts are not known and Accused No. 6 is the only a delivery boy and PW. 5 had not supported the version of the prosecution and also in view of the inconsistency in the evidence of other witnesses, the appellants/accused Nos. 3 and 6 are entitled for an acquittal. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of clause 14 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, under the corresponding provision, the conviction was recorded and sentence had been imposed and the same is in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that even if there is some irregularity in not complying with the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, it would be a curable irregularity and not an illegality and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed are to be confirmed. ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY, the Inspector of Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, flying squad, Tirupati, laid charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 10 and Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and A-10 have been absconding, the case was split up and file was taken up as against Accused Nos. 3, 6, 7 and A-8 and acquittal was recorded as against Accused Nos. 7 and 8. In view of the conviction and sentence imposed. Accused Nos. 3 and A-6 had preferred the present appeals. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Accused No. 1 is the native of Nuzevedu, who migrated to Tirupati, carrying on business. A-2 and A-3 are brothers and managing a shop under the name and style Lakshmi Enterprises at Tirupati. A-4 and A-5 are the brothers having a separate business establishment with the name and style BUTTERFLY GAS AGENCIES. A-6, A-7 and A-8 are the delivery boys of liquefied petroleum cooking gas in different establishments at Tirupati. A-9 and A-10 are the residents of Vijayawada. A-1 got acquaintance with A9 and A-10. A-4 and A-5 are the brothers having a separate business establishment with the name and style BUTTERFLY GAS AGENCIES. A-6, A-7 and A-8 are the delivery boys of liquefied petroleum cooking gas in different establishments at Tirupati. A-9 and A-10 are the residents of Vijayawada. A-1 got acquaintance with A9 and A-10. On 12-07-1993, when the house of A-1 was surprised by the Vigilance Police, A-1 was present. Several unauthorized cooking gas cylinders and regulations were detected there. On enquiry, A-1 informed that he procured 65 empty cylinders, 25 regulators and 15 gas stoves from A-9 and A-10 two or three months earlier to the above said search and also informed that he sold some of them to A-2 to A-6 and also sold two refill cylinders with two regulators along with two stoves to some strangers. Then, the nine empty cylinders, two full cylinders, three regulators and two stoves, which were in possession of A-1, were seized under a cover of mahazar. On the same day, A-1 lead the vigilance police to Lakshmi Enterprises, the shop premises of A-2 and A-3, whom A-1 pointed out as the persons to whom he sold cylinders and regulators. On enquiry in the presence of A-1, A-2 affirmed and informed that he has purchased cylinders and regulators from A-1 and sold one cylinder each to LWs. 4 and 5 i. e. , Venkatapuram Gopal and Lokeshu respectively. The remaining unauthorized 8 empty cylinders and two regulators, which were purchased by A-2 and A-3 from A-1 were produced before the Vigilance police which were seized by them under a cover of mahazar. On enquiry, A-3 informed that he sold one regulator and one cylinder each to LWs. 6 and 7 viz. , S. Kuppa Raju and K. Nagendra Reddy respectively. As per the information furnished by A-1, the Vigilance police accompanied with the mediators, went to the house of A-6 at Chittoor on the next day and A-6 produced 7 empty cylinders and 6 regulators and informed that he, in turn, sold the cylinders and regulators and gas stoves to LWs. 12 and 13 i. e. , P. V. Paramasivam (PW. 5) and K. Prabhakar Reddy respectively. Those cylinders and regulators and stoves were seized in the presence of mediators under a cover of mahazar on the same day at 11. 12 and 13 i. e. , P. V. Paramasivam (PW. 5) and K. Prabhakar Reddy respectively. Those cylinders and regulators and stoves were seized in the presence of mediators under a cover of mahazar on the same day at 11. 15 p. m. A-1 led the vigilance police and mediators to the shop premises of A-4 at Chittoor and informed that he had sold five cylinders and three regulators to A-4. On enquiry, A-4 informed that he sold one regulator and one cylinder each to L. Ws. 8 and 9 i. e. , Acharya Tulasi Ramu and Dr. Unnikrishna respectively and produced the remaining three empty cylinders and one regulator. They were also seized under a cover of mahazar in the presence of mediators. On the same day, A-1 led the Vigilance Police and mediators to the shop of A-5 at 12. 45 noon, pointing out A-5 as the person, to whom he sold 4 empty cylinders and two regulators. On being questioned about the same, A-5 disclosed that one cylinder and regulator each were sold to L. Ws. 10 and 11 i. e. , Muddu Krishnaiah and Anandaiah respectively and the remaining two empty cylinders and one regulator were seized under a cover of mahazar by the Vigilance Police. As the accused 1 to 6, 9 and 10 carried business in gas cylinders and regulators without proper licence and authorization, contravened Cl. 6 (1) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 and found having possession of unauthorized liquefied petroleum gas cylinders and regulators. A-1 to A-6 are not the consumers. Having in possession of unauthorised gas cylinders and regulators, they violated Clause 6 (3) and (4) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988 and A-1 violated Clause 3 (2) of the said order, 1988 and A-7 and A-8 violated Clause 6 (1) of the said Order, 1993 and the accused 1 to 10 are liable for punishment under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the E. C. Act, 1955. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-20. The learned Judge recorded a finding that as per the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, there is no material against Accused Nos. 7 and 8, but, however arrived at a conclusion that the offence, with which Accused Nos. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-20. The learned Judge recorded a finding that as per the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, there is no material against Accused Nos. 7 and 8, but, however arrived at a conclusion that the offence, with which Accused Nos. 3 and 6 had been charged with, had been proved. ( 7 ) PW. 1 is the C. I of Police, Vigilance, Tirupati, who had deposed in detail about the case and the events in seriatim. PW. 2 - P. Chengalraya Chetty deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in MROs Office, Erpedu and that from 1992 July up to October, 1994, he worked as Revenue Inspector for Tirupati Urban. He attested the mahazars Ex. P-4, P-7, P-8 and P-9. This witness deposed that the VAO, Tirupati, PW. 1 and some others of Excise Department also were present at the time of preparing these mahazars and these mahazars were prepared in his presence at respective places mentioned in those mahazars. This witness also deposed that the contents of the mahazars are true and VAO, Tirupati, also attested the mahazars as a mediator. No doubt in his cross examination, he deposed that he does not remember how many cylinders were seized at Lakshmi Enterprises and he does not remember the names who were present at the time when they went to Lakshmi Enterprises and he does not remember date and time when he visited the said Enterprises. Further, he deposed that he does not remember what are all mentioned in the mahazar and he does not remember the contents of the panchanama and he had denied certain suggestions. ( 8 ) PW. 3 A. Chandrasekhar is the V. A. O of Tirupati Urban, who deposed about his signatures shown in Exs. P-10 and P-19. This witness also deposed that he had attested in the above mahazars and that P. W. 2, R. I. were present during proceedings Exs. P-4, P-7, P-8 and P-9 which were recorded at Tirupati. This witness also deposed that he had put his signatures in Ex. P-4 along with PW. 2 only in one exhibit. PW. 1 and other Vigilance constables were present when Exs. P. 10 and P-19 were prepared. This witness was cross examined. P-4, P-7, P-8 and P-9 which were recorded at Tirupati. This witness also deposed that he had put his signatures in Ex. P-4 along with PW. 2 only in one exhibit. PW. 1 and other Vigilance constables were present when Exs. P. 10 and P-19 were prepared. This witness was cross examined. No doubt, he deposed that he does not remember where panchanamas were prepared and on the same day in 4 or 5 places cylinders and regulators were seized. ( 9 ) PW. 4 is the retired employee of T. T. Devastanams, who deposed that he know A-3 Subramanyam and in July, 1993 A-3 approached him and sold one cylinder and regulator and he paid Rs. 3,200/- to him for the cylinder and the regulator. After 10 or 15 days, the police seized the said cylinder and regulator from his house. He was enquired by the police and his statement was recorded. In cross-examination by A-3, witness volunteers that panchanama was prepared at Vigilance Office and it was observed by the Court that the witness was won over by the accused. No doubt, certain suggestions were also denied. However, it is pertinent to note that this witnesspw. 4 was not declared hostile since he had supported the version of the prosecution. PW. 5 milk vendor deposed that he does not know A-6 and he was not examined by PW. 1 and this witness was declared hostile. ( 10 ) ON the strength of this evidence especially in the light of clear evidence of PW. 1 to PW. 3 and also PW. 4 and Exs. P-1 to P-20, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the offence as against Accused Nos. 3 and 6 had been proved. It is no doubt true that the accused were charged with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 3 (2) (6) (1) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988 and it is also true that the conviction was recorded and sentence was imposed under Clause 6 (1) (a) Order 6 (1) (c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993. Clause 14 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 deals with repeal and saving, which reads as hereunder:- 14. Clause 14 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 deals with repeal and saving, which reads as hereunder:- 14. Repeal and Saving:- (1) The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 is hereby repealed except in respect of things done or omitted to be done under that order before the commencement of this order. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken under the said Order shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Order. (3) It is needless to say that in view of Clause 14 (2) referred to supra, there cannot be any doubt or controversy that though 1988 order was repealed under the corresponding provision of 1993 order, conviction can be recorded and sentence can be imposed. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard cannot be accepted and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. No doubt, submissions at length were made by the learned counsel for the appellants that Accused No. 3 is only the brother of the prime accused and he has nothing to do with the Enterprises from which cylinders were seized. Section 100 of the Code deals with person in charge of closed place to allow search and sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 100 of the Code reads hereunder:- (4) Before making any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another women with strict regard to decency. (5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it. ( 11 ) THE Vigilance Police while seizing, no doubt, secured the presence of PWs. 2 and PW. 3 and sub-Section 4 of Section 100 of the Code had been in substance complied with. ( 11 ) THE Vigilance Police while seizing, no doubt, secured the presence of PWs. 2 and PW. 3 and sub-Section 4 of Section 100 of the Code had been in substance complied with. Stress was laid he shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality and submissions at length were made that these witnesses are not from the locality. These witnesses are definitely respectable inhabitants and at the best, it can be said that it is only a curable irregularity. The other submissions, which had been made at length relating to the illegality of certain seizure also cannot be sustained for the reason that the evidence of PWs. 2 and PW. 3 coupled with the evidence of PW. 1 is clear and categorical. Yet another submission was made that Accused No. 3 is not the prime accused. This contention also cannot be sustained in view of the relationship and in view of the fact that he sold the cylinders to PW. 4. The evidence available on record as far as Accused No. 6 is concerned, is PW5. PW. 5 deposed that he does not know Accused No. 6 and he was not examined by PW. 1 and cylinders and regulators were not seized from his house and he was declared hostile. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was able to show some material against the delivery boy also. In the light of the evidence of PW. 5, this Court is of the opinion that as against Accused No. 6, the prosecution was unable to establish the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the same benefit which had been given to Accused Nos. 7 and 8 by the leaned District judge, Chittoor may have to be extended to Accused No. 6 also. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, acquittal is recorded as far as Accused No. 6 is concerned. But, however as far as accused No. 3 is concerned, the conviction and sentence are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 1998 is hereby allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 1566 of 1998 is hereby dismissed.