Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 8.7.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kapurthala, convicting the accused-appellants (herein referred as the accused) under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act (herein referred as the Act) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. 2. In nut shell, the facts are that on 26.2.1995, at about 5.00 p. m. Parveen Kumar SI along with other police officials was present at the bus stop phagwara, where he received a secret information that the accused were selling gas cylinders in the black market and were charging Rs.250/- instead of Rs.102/- (prescribed rate), while parking the truck bearing registration No. HR-05a-4918 in front of Chawla Auto Workshop and they could be apprehended red handed. Finding the information to be reliable, he sent ruqa Ex. PG for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PG/1 was recorded by Gurdial Singh MHC. SI Parveen Kumar went to the spot where he saw Avtar Singh was unloading the empty cylinders and one filled cylinder from the truck, whereas, accused Rakesh kumar was standing with two customers namely Vicky Sood and Naresh Nichhal. On enquiry, the aforesaid two witnesses disclosed that they had paid Rs.250/-per cylinder and purchased two cylinders from the accused. SI Parveen Kumar had recovered two empty cylinders given to them by the customers and also two filled cylinders as given to them along with 303 empty gas cylinders and 5 filled gas cylinders from the truck vide memo Ex. PA. He arrested the accused. The case was investigated and challan was presented against them. 3. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charged under Sec.7 of the Act for violation of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 (herein referred as 1988 order ). 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined surinder Singh ASI, Kiran Sachdeva, R. C. Setia Senior Operation Manager, Indian oil Corporation and Vicky Sood. However, PW Naresh Nichhal was given up as won over. SI Parveen Kumar was also examined being the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. However, PW Naresh Nichhal was given up as won over. SI Parveen Kumar was also examined being the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by them was also dismissed. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. The case as set up by the prosecution has not been proved by Vicky sood as he was declared hostile, whereas, Naresh Nichhal has been given up being won over. Still, from the testimony of R. C. Setia and other documents, the prosecution has been able to prove its case that the accused were found in possession of seven unauthorized gas cylinders which were filled with gas because they had returned 308 empty cylinders at the main office on 13.5.1995 according to the cross examination over R. C. Setia (PW3 ). It is also in evidence that the accused had taken 306 filled gas cylinders and returned back only 305 cylinders at the office of the company. Surinder Singh ASI had also raided the premises and found the accused in possession of seven filled unauthorized cylinders. Though, Vicky Sood has resiled from the testimony, yet, he has corroborated the fact to the effect that 5-7 cylinders were lying on the ground apart from the large number of cylinders in the truck. The accused were arrested at the spot and the filled gas cylinders were recovered from the customers and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. Thus, the recovery of filled as well as empty cylinders from the accused and also that the accused were not authorized to pilfer or sell the stolen gas in the market. Charges against them that they had violated the provisions of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and distribution) Order 1988, stands established. There is no reason to discard the testimony of official witnesses as they having no enmity or ill-will or animus against the accused would not have deposed against them falsely and they had no source to plant such rare articles upon them. The independent witnesses in these days could be expected to make favour to the private parties while ignoring the cause of the State for the variety of reasons. The independent witnesses in these days could be expected to make favour to the private parties while ignoring the cause of the State for the variety of reasons. No doubt, the testimony of the official witnesses needs to be scrutinized more closely with greater care and caution so as to rule out any false implication. Having scrutinized the statements of the aforesaid official witnesses, I am convinced that there was no chance of false implication, the accused were arrested in the natural circumstances and the recoveries were effected. On further raid, seven more unexplained cylinders were recovered. 8. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the liquified Petroleum Gas being in short, if sold by the dealers or other hoarders in the market at the higher rates for which they are not even having any licence and if gas is pilfered from the full weight cylinders to the empty cylinders and then sold to the poor customers at the rates as demanded by them, then it will effect the social fabric and destroy the economy of the nation. In such circumstances, the accused does not deserve any benefit of reduction in sentence, rather it appears that the trial court has already awarded sentence on the lower side. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. 10. Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules.