ORDER 1. This revision, filed under Section Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, Udagamandalam, in C.A.No.8 of 2009, confirming the order of confiscation passed by the District Revenue Officer, Udagamandalam, Nilgiris District, in his order dated 30.01.2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, who is an accused, is running a grocery/provision shop under the name and style ‘Ulagamadha Store’, at Door No.6/113-B-6, Kolappalli Village, Pandalur Taluk. The first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Udagamandalam Nilgiris District, initiated action against the petitioner under the provisions of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Trade) Order 2000 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner was found to be in possession of 46 Domestic Gas Cylinders and one non-domestic gas cylinder in his premises. The gas cylinders were seized in Crime No.853/2008, for offences under Sections 3(4), 4(1)(b), 4(2), 6, 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 9(d) and 9(E) of LPG (RSD) Order 2000, read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955. Thereafter, the seized gas cylinders were deposited with Thungapriya Gas Service, Naduvattam and a report was made to confiscate the cylinders to the Government. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.12.2008 under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation by stating that he is running a grocery shop and the 46 cylinders, belonged to his customers, had been seized by the first respondent; the customers are residing in and around Kolappally and they are Estate labourers; their houses are located in remote places in hilly areas; there is no motorable road to their residences; no one is staying in the house, as both husband and wife are working in different estates; their children are school going children and these consumers leave the empty gas cylinders with the petitioner, so that the petitioner would collect the full gas cylinders from the gas agency and his services are rendered at free of cost. The first respondent disbelieved the stand taken by the petitioner by observing that the explanation offered is not acceptable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 4. The first respondent disbelieved the stand taken by the petitioner by observing that the explanation offered is not acceptable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 4. Firstly, it is to be noted that the explanation offered by the petitioner was rejected by a single line order. The first respondent has not assigned any reason as to how the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. No witnesses were examined; notices were not issued to the consumers, in whose names the gas connections stand and the gas agency, with whom the consumers are registered, was not put on notice. Therefore, these defects are inherent. The first respondent failed to take into consideration that if the gas cylinders are to be confiscated to the Government, then the ultimate sufferer would be the consumers, in whose names the connections have been given. Therefore, no proceedings for confiscation could have been initiated, without notice to the consumers. This inherent defect was not considered by the Court of Sessions, which merely confirmed the order of the first respondent stating that the case as stated by the petitioner is unbelievable. Though the Court of Sessions referred to the stand taken by the petitioner, it rejected the same by stating that such a plea cannot be accepted, since it is in violation of the Control Order. 5. It may be true that as in terms of the Control Order no person will be entitled to store such gas cylinders either empty or full. However, the plea raised by the petitioner ought to have been examined by the first respondent, which was not done, nor the Court below considered the same. 6. It is to be noted that the region is a hilly region and when the petitioner has made out a specific case that all the consumers are tea Estate labourers, working in remote places and the way to their residences is not motorable, enquiry ought to have been conducted and the consumers should have been examined. Further, as regards the legal issue raised by the petitioner that notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act ought to have been issued to each of the consumers is concerned, the Sessions Court brushed aside the point without considering the true import of the said statement. Further, as regards the legal issue raised by the petitioner that notice under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act ought to have been issued to each of the consumers is concerned, the Sessions Court brushed aside the point without considering the true import of the said statement. The property, namely, the gas cylinders may belong to the Oil Company, nevertheless, if a consumer pays for the full gas cylinder, until the gas cylinder is empty, the consumer retains control over the cylinder and therefore, he ought to have been issued with notice. 7. For all the above reasons, the order of the Court below, confirming the order of the first respondent, calls for interference. Accordingly, the order dated 22.06.2010 made in C.A. No. 8 of 2009 is set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Revision allowed.