JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed against the order of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 17.06.08 by which he has dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the District Magistrate dated 20.04.05 , on the point of limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are like that. It is alleged that on 05.11.04 the Enforcement Officer inspected the firm's premises and found some irregularities and illegalities with regard to gas cylinders. In contravention of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supplies) Order, 2000 , a case under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was initiated and 33 gas cylinders, which were found unauthorizedly in occupation and were finally ordered to be forfeited . In this respect impugned order dated 20.04.05 was passed . Against that, the petitioners filed an appeal under section 6-A of the Act. It is revealed that appeal was barred by limitation , therefore, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, along with an affidavit in support of the contentions, was also filed with appeal. It is further revealed that the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the point of limitation, registered the appeal subject to objection on point of limitation vide order dated 18.07.05. Notices were issued. Thereafter, on hearing both the sides, vide order dated 17.06.08 dismissed the appeal only on the point of limitation, he has not considered the case on merit. The Sessions Judge found that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard both the parties. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge should have decided this matter on merit but on the point of limitation the learned Court has dismissed the appeal. It was stated that on the point of limitation, a liberal view should have been taken as the delay was found to be of only 14 days and in this respect satisfactory reason has been assigned ,supported by an affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners also assailed the order on merit and it was submitted that the disputed cylinders were of labourers. There was no contravention of said order and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also assailed the order on merit and it was submitted that the disputed cylinders were of labourers. There was no contravention of said order and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. A request was made to allow the revision and quash the impugned orders. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The learned Sessions Judge, without going in to the merit of the case, only on the point of limitation, has dismissed the appeal. I have perused the impugned order and the material available on record. As per record, the delay of 14 days was found . In that respect an application has been filed supported by an affidavit. The reasons assigned was that due to non communication of order by counsel and administrative exigencies, the delay has been caused. I consider that the delay seems to be bona fide. Considering theses aspects, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge should have condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on merit. He has only decided it on the point of limitation. Therefore, case is required to be remitted back for decision on merit. 7. Considering all the submissions, the revision is partly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the case is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for deciding the case on merit. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the delay is condoned and the case is remanded for afresh hearing on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 15.12.08.Revision Petition Patly Allowed. *******