JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Pal Road Gas Service against the order dated 13.07.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 76/05 whereby he has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur in Criminal Complaint No. 14/2004 (State v. Pal Road Gas Service) . 3. Briefly stated the facts as revealed from the record of the case are that on 16.12.2004 the Enforcement Officer, District Supply Office, Jodhpur alongwith his staff and the police officials of the Police Station, Chopsani Housing Board, Jodhpur on the basis of complaints of theft and black marketing of LPG gas made against the Gas Agency jointly conducted raid at House Nos. 8/91 and 8/92 of Sector-8, Chopsani Housing Board, Jodhpur and found there that Liquefied Petroleum Gas (in short 'LPG') was being transferred from one cylinder to another with the aid of iron pipe with a view to commit theft of gas. That was found in violation of Sections 4(1) (a) (d), 6 and 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to 'LPG Order 2000'). On which, the gas cylinders alongwith the iron pipe used for transferring gas from filled cylinder to another empty cylinder and a loading taxi bearing No. RJ 19-1G-9500 were seized. In all 26 domestic gas cylinders were found, out of whom, 07 cylinders were found under under-weight, 09 cylinders were found with full gas and in sealed condition and 10 cylinders were found totally empty. 4. On this, a criminal complaint No. 14/04 was filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'E.C. Act, 1955') before the Collector, Jodhpur alleging therein that the petitioners were unauthorisedly indulged in transferring LPG gas from sealed gas cylinders with a view to sell into the market, which amounts to gross violation of Sections 4(1)(a)(d), 6 and 7 of the LPG Order, 2000. Thus, a prayer was made to confiscate the 26 domestic gas cylinders belonging to petitioner. 5. Thus, a prayer was made to confiscate the 26 domestic gas cylinders belonging to petitioner. 5. It is revealed from the order of learned Collector that no reply was submitted by the petitioner gas agency before learned Collector nor any person turned-up on the date of passing of order, as such, on 25.04.2005 after hearing passed an order to confiscate the 26 domestic gas cylinders and to initiate enquiry and to take action against the Dealer of the gas agency. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 25.04.2005 preferred appeal under Section 6-C of the E.C. Act, 1955 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The appeal was filed on the basis of knowledge of the impugned order with an application U/s. 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing he appeal. The learned Sessions Judge while condoning the delay, heard the appeal on merit but he too rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 25.04.2005 passed by learned Collector. Hence, this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.PC., has been filed by the petitioner. 7. A notice of this revision was issued. The record of the case was called and the arguments of either side were heard. 8. During the course of arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of learned Sessions Judge dated 13.07.2007 and the order passed by the learned Collector dated 25.04.2004 are erroneous and have not been passed after considering and appreciating the material available on record. It was argued that the Gas Agency i.e. the petitioner has no connection or concern with the alleged act of its hawkers, as such, penal order should not have been passed against the petitioner-Agency. It was further urged that the learned Collector as well as the learned Sessions Judge have not properly gone through the seizure memo dated 16.12.2004, from which it was crystal clear that In all 26 domestic gas cylinders were found, out of which, 07 cylinders were found having less weight than the prescribed, 09 cylinders were found with perfect weight i.e. full gas and in sealed condition and 18 cylinders were found empty (which were available against the gas cylinders supplied to consumers). Ten counter-receipts were found on the spot, which fortify the fact that these 10 empty gas cylinders were received against the supply of filled gas cylinders made to consumers. Thus there was no dispute with regard to 10+9 = 19 cylinders. Further it reveals from the seizure memo that in all 25 gas cylinders were given to Oma Ram-Delivery Boy for distribution. One gas cylinder found on the spot was of Ramdeen and has nothing to do with the petitioner and that was not liable to be confiscated. With regard to the remaining gas cylinders, proper inquiry was not done, therefore, the LPG gas cylinders should not have been confiscated. It was also contended that no proper notice of hearing was given by the learned Collector, therefore, the petitioner could not place his contentions before the learned Collector. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has also committed an error in upholding the order of learned Collector. The learned Sessions Judge has not given due weightage to the contentions placed before him. There was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to violate the provisions of gas Order, 2000. Lastly, it was prayed that the petitioner-Gas Agency should not be put to pecuniary loss and it should not be held liable for the acts of his hawkers. Thus, on the basis of these submissions a prayer was made to allow, the revision petition by setting aside the impugned orders and to dismiss the order of confiscation of the gas cylinders. 9. On the contrary the learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contentions and supported the impugned orders. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that during raid, the hawkers of petitioner-Gas Agency were found involved in transferring gas from one cylinder to another. No proper explanation was given for the under-weight gas cylinders whose seals were found manipulated. Thus, the gas cylinders were rightly confiscated. Further no reply was submitted by the petitioner before the learned Collector, as such, the petitioner is estopped to raise all these contentions now. It was also submitted that before the Collector no claim was made with regard to one cylinder by Ramdeen. Thus, the orders impugned have rightly been passed, they be maintained and the revision petition bedismissed. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record of the case. It was also submitted that before the Collector no claim was made with regard to one cylinder by Ramdeen. Thus, the orders impugned have rightly been passed, they be maintained and the revision petition bedismissed. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record of the case. I have also perused the impugned orders as well as the provisions of said LPG Order, 2000. 11. It is revealed from record that as per seizure memo dated 16.12.2004 in all 25 domestic gas cylinders were given to Oma Ram, Delivery Boy of the petitioner-agency vide gate pass No. 1464 dated 16.12.2004 which were found loaded in loading taxi, out of them 07 cylinders were found under-weight and their seal was also not found intact, 09 cylinders were found with perfect weight (having weight of. 14.200 Kg. gas) and in sealed/intact condition on spot and 10 cylinders were found empty. One empty gas cylinder was found there in that respect during the course of arguments it was stated that belonged to one Ramdeen but no claim was made by Ramdeen before the learned Collector. It is further revealed from seizure memo that 07 gas cylinders out of the issued cylinders were found having less weight than the prescribed weight, in that respect, petitioner has not filed any reply before the learned Collector nor he has been able to explain the position of cylinders being under-weight before the learned Sessions Judge. The contention of the petitioner that he cannot be made responsible for the action of his hawker but looking to the facts of the case that he was the authorised person of the dealer to whom vide gate pass No. 1464 dated 16.12.2004 gas cylinders were issued for distributing to consumers in an intact condition but the hawker has not maintained that position, therefore, the petitioner-Agency can be held liable for his acts. It is further revealed from the seizure memo that on the spot gas was found being transferred from one filled cylinder to empty cylinder. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect, 07 cylinders found having less gas weight (except 10 empty cylinders and 09 cylinders with perfect weight) are liable to be confiscated. The learned Collector as well as the learned Sessions Judge have not properly considered the factual position in this respect, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be modified. 12. The learned Collector as well as the learned Sessions Judge have not properly considered the factual position in this respect, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be modified. 12. I have also considered the legal position laid down in Sections 4(a)(d), 6 and 7 of the LPG Order, 2000 and after going through the relevant material, I consider it fit to maintain the orders of the courts below to the extent that G7 cylinders found having less gas weight (except 10 empty cylinders and 09 cylinders with perfect weight) are liable to be confiscated. 13. In the net result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of the learned Collector as well as the order of learned Sessions Judge to the extent of 07 gas cylinders is maintained, with regard to other gas cylinders the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner-gas agency shall be entitled to retain the 19 gas cylinders. *******