JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.6.2010 whereby the learned Court below has ordered for confiscation of 34 domestic gas cylinders. 2. The short facts of the case are that Shri Ramchandra Meena, submitted a written report at Police Station, Kaila Devi, District Karauli under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 34 gas cylinders were seized. Thereafter, a thorough investigation was made in the matter and a negative final report was presented in the competent Court, which was accepted by the competent Court. In spite of this, order of confiscation of 34 gas cylinders was made vide order dated 9.3.2009. The appeal preferred against the order dated 9.3.2009 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.6.2010. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The only contention of the present petitioners is that when negative final report has been given in the matter in their favour and no case is made out for any contravention of any order under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and looking to the provisions of Section 6A(3) of the Act, the seized articles should be returned to the persons from whom, they have been seized or to the owner of the goods.The relevant provision reads as under : "6A(3). Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 6C so requires, or (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment delivered in Basanti Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1995(1) WLC (Raj.) 728 , wherein it has been held that when the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court, he is entitled for return of the goods. 5. Further reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of Hansraj & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1995(1) WLC (Raj.) 728 , wherein it has been held that when the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court, he is entitled for return of the goods. 5. Further reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of Hansraj & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 WLC (UC) (Raj.) 719 and M/s. Sandeep Industries v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 RCC 405. wherein the same situation has been dealt with. 6. In the present case, the facts seem to be similar. Negative final report has been placed on record, which has also been accepted by the competent Court. Meaning thereby that there is no contravention of any of the order under the Essential Commodities Act and the learned Courts below have not considered that when negative Final Report has been filed in the matter and looking to the provision of Section 6A(3), the goods cannot be confiscated and it must be returned to the owner of the goods or from the person from whom it has been seized. There is no dispute about the fact that the present petitioners are the consumers of the Karauli Gas Service and all the 34 cylinders belong to them. 7. Hence, looking at the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 9.3.2009 and 10.6.2010 are quashed and set aside and it is ordered that all the 34 gas cylinders be handed over to the present petitioners.Petition allowed. *******