Judgment A. N. Jindal, J. 1. Accused-appellant Santokh Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was tried under Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, for committing violation of Rule 3 of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of supply and Distribution) Order 1988. Consequently, he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The allegations as unfolded by the prosecution are that on 6.9.1991, ASI Mukhtar Singh received a secret information near bank chowk Islamabad, Amritsar, against the accused for keeping in his unauthorised possession gas cylinders with liquified petroleum gas and he was transferring the gas with the help of gauze from one cylinder to the other and was selling the same un-authorisedly. Consequently, after sending ruqa Ex. PB, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. The accused was found present in the house and was seen removing gas from the filled cylinders to the empty cylinders. Out of 15 cylinders (Ex. P1 to Ex. P15), 9 cylinders were filled with LPG and six were empty. Consequently, all the 15 cylinders along with gauze were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC. Rough site plan Ex. PP was prepared. On completion of the investigation, challan crl. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995 2. Against the accused was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On commencement of the trial, the prosecution examined HC vijay Kumar (PW1), Harpreet Singh (PW2), ASI Baldev Singh (PW3), Sher jang Singh (PW4), ASI Mukhtiar Singh (PW5) and Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, emo (PW6 ). When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case. During defence, he examined Kulwant Singh (DW1) and closed his defence. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly. Hence this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. S. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the records of this case with their able assistance. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly. Hence this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. S. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the records of this case with their able assistance. It has been urged forward to convince the mind of the Court that the accused had nothing to do with the offence. He was an employee of sandeep Gas Agency to whom the cylinders are related, therefore, he being delivery man was supplying the cylinders to the public. In this connection he examined Kulwant Singh (DW1) Manager, Sandeep Gas Service, amritsar. Having gone through the statement of Kulwant Singh (DW1), it comes to light that as per salary statement Ex. D1 and Ex. D3, the accused was his employee during the months of July and August, 1991. He did not produce any such salary statement for the month of September, 1991, in which the occurrence took place. As a matter of fact, Kulwant Singh (DW1) admitted during cross-examination that he remained in service up to 2.9.1991, whereas this offence took place on 6.9.1991. Consequently, the accused could not be said to be an employee of Sandeep Gas Service on the day when he was arrested along with cylinders at his house. Assuming for the sake of arguments that he was employee of Sandeep Gas Service, even then he had no authority to take cylinders, as handed over to him by the crl. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995 3. Dealer to his house instead of delivering the same to the consumers. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 9 cylinders in a room. He has also not proved any such voucher regarding delivery of these cylinders to the consumers. No consumer has been examined who had got issued the cylinders for delivery at their house on the day of occurrence. In any case, this witness has given a different statement that on 6.9.1991 police took into possession 15 cylinders of sandeep Gas Agency but this statement also appears to be false. No consumer has been examined who had got issued the cylinders for delivery at their house on the day of occurrence. In any case, this witness has given a different statement that on 6.9.1991 police took into possession 15 cylinders of sandeep Gas Agency but this statement also appears to be false. Had it been so, then according to him company was bound to inform about such incident to Bharat Petroleum but no such report was submitted by the Gas agency, nor any complaint was made by the dealer to any higher authorities regarding taking of the gas cylinders by the police. As a matter of fact, the accused cannot wriggle out of the case as he appears to have suffered injuries in the process of conversion from filled gas cylinders to empty gas cylinders. Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, EMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar (PW6), who had medico-legally examined the accused on 6.9.1991, at about 6.10 pm, found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Infected burn wound on the dorsum of both the feet and both the hands. 2. Infected burn wound present on the tip of nose. He proved his report Ex. PW6/a. The possibilities of these burn injuries on account of the process of conversion also cannot be ruled out. He was caught by the police on the said day in an injured condition and recovery of 9 filled gas cylinders was effected from him. He has no explanation for the same. The testimony of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their status as such. I have anxiously examined the testimony of ASI Baldev Singh (PW3), Sher Jang Singh (PW4) and ASI Mukhtiar Singh (PW5 ). All the aforesaid witnesses are quite consistent in their statements about the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. Barring minor discrepancies which are bound to occur in the testimony of the truthful witnesses, no material infirmity has been found in their statements as to render their statements as untruthful or improbable. Consequently, findings returned by the trial Court that the crl. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995 4. Accused was found in un-authorised possession of 15 cylinders of LPG is established beyond doubt. No doubt, a gauze has been recovered from his possession which could be indicative of the fact that the accused was indulging in removing gas from one cylinder to the other. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995 4. Accused was found in un-authorised possession of 15 cylinders of LPG is established beyond doubt. No doubt, a gauze has been recovered from his possession which could be indicative of the fact that the accused was indulging in removing gas from one cylinder to the other. Though the police faulted in weighing empty gas cylinders and the filled gas cylinders, yet the injury suffered by the accused can be taken as sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had suffered burn injuries in the process of conversion from filled gas cylinders to empty gas cylinders. While going to the worst, I cannot exonerate the accused as the unauthorised possession of 9 gas cylinders violates the Clause (2) of Rule 3 of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988. The said rule reads as under :- No person shall possess or use liquified petroleum gas filled in cylinders or in bulk from unless he has received supply thereof from a distributor or from an Oil Company. Consequently, the possession having been established beyond doubt, the accused would be held to have committed the offence in violation of the aforesaid order as committed under Sec.7 of Essential commodities Act. The accused could not show that he was supplied these cylinders against some vouchers by the distributor. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, since minimum sentence has been awarded to the accused, I do not find any plausible ground to interfere with the same because day in and day out, crime against the essential commodities is on the increase. They while putting their own lives at peril and at the cost of the consumers try to earn this easy money. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. March 16, 2007 (A. N. Jindal)deepak Judge