JUDGMENT : 1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been directed against the order dated 08.06.2001 passed by the Court of Special Judge [Essential Commodities Act], Jaipur, [for short the "Act"], whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen-days simple imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.10.1999 a report was lodged by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nathsingh [PW-11] stating therein that he has received an information from A.S.I. Mohri Lal [PW-5] on 26.10.1999 at about 05:30 A.M., a Gas Cylinder in the kitchen of the petitioner had burst. Upon receiving said information, the Police party headed over by PW-11 Nathsingh, Dy. S.P. reached at the house of the petitioner, where Suresh son of the petitioner was present. On inquiry, the son of the petitioner had informed that they were not having any connection given by any Gas Agency. It is further stated that at the spot, one cylinder, burst due to explosion was found along with one empty cylinder, the broken pressure regulator, two rubber gas pipes and one gas stove. 3. According to the Investigating Officer, since the petitioner was not having any valid gas connection, there was a breach of Liquefied Petroleum Gas [Regulation of Supply & Distributor] Order, 1993 [for short the "Order, 1993"] and, hence, the petitioner had committed offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Act. The above said First Information Report was investigated and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. On 14.03.2001, the petitioner was charged for breach of Clause 6 of the Order, 1993 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Act. 4. The petitioner had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. 5. PW-1 Banshidhar has not supported the prosecution case. He has only stated that on 26.10.1999 at about 06:00 A.M. due to burst of the gas cylinder, there was an explosion in the street. He further stated that the gas cylinder belongs to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the same was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. 5. PW-1 Banshidhar has not supported the prosecution case. He has only stated that on 26.10.1999 at about 06:00 A.M. due to burst of the gas cylinder, there was an explosion in the street. He further stated that the gas cylinder belongs to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the same was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Further this witness has not stated anything regarding illegality of the gas connection. 6. PW-2 Ravindra Kumar Sharma stated that he had over heard that gas cylinder in the house of the petitioner had bursted. He further stated that the son of the petitioner had not shown any document regarding gas connection. 7. PW-3 Pramod Kumar, who had prepared site-plan was also declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-4 Vimal Kumar has also not supported the prosecution case. 8. PW-5 A.S.I. Mohari Lal has stated that while he was posted at Police Station he received telephonic information regarding bursting of the gas cylinder. He had reached at the spot, recorded the statement of the witnesses and further stated that the owner of house, petitioner, Kedar, during interrogation could not produce any valid license regarding gas connection. 9. PW-6, Sanwarmal has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-7, Pooran Aggarwal has not supported the prosecution case. PW-8, Bihari Lal, who was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station proved the F.I.R. lodged at the Police Station. PW-9, Banwari has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-10, Pratap Singh has also not supported the prosecution case and PW-11, Nathsingh, Investigating Officer proved various facets of the investigation. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 10. Except the statement of the Investigating Officers that during investigation and interrogation, they could not find any valid license regarding gas connection, no other witness has supported the prosecution case. 11. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. Accused had denied incriminating circumstances by stating that he was not present at the spot. It is further stated that the document regarding gas cylinder, belong to his relative, which he had produced before the Court. 12. Petitioner/accused had examined his nephew, namely Gajanand Aggarwal as D.W.-1. Accused had denied incriminating circumstances by stating that he was not present at the spot. It is further stated that the document regarding gas cylinder, belong to his relative, which he had produced before the Court. 12. Petitioner/accused had examined his nephew, namely Gajanand Aggarwal as D.W.-1. He said that since he used to stay with his maternal uncle [petitioner], he had kept one cylinder at house of his uncle and witness was having B.P.C.L. connection. 13. Since the prosecution failed to connect that the gas cylinder, which bursted at the house of the petitioner, the Court below has primarily convicted the petitioner on the basis of the statement made by defence witness. DW-1 Gajanand who stated that since he was staying at the house of his maternal uncle, he had kept a gas cylinder here. 14. The Court below, in the impugned order relying upon Clause 6 of the Order, 1993, which stated that no person until he is a consumer will keep the gas cylinder in his possession, convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Act for breach of Clause 6 of the Order, 1993. 15. To prove its case, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to stand its own legs and to prove the case against the accused. 16. Since all the witnesses have turned hostile and no dealer of any gas agency was examined, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was not having any valid license of gas connection, at least, prosecution could examine the local dealer of Bharat Petroleum to which gas cylinder belonged to say that the petitioner was not having any valid gas connection. 17. Investigating Officer has also not noticed the number on the cylinder and made no inquiries from the Office of B.P.C.L. as to from which dealer the gas cylinder, in question was issued. Investigating Officer has miserably failed to connect the cylinder, which had burst at the spot with any dealer of B.P.C.L. and issuance of the connection to another person. 18. It is submitted that merely because in the kitchen of the petitioner gas cylinder had bursted, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having a valid license. The burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was not having any valid license. 18. It is submitted that merely because in the kitchen of the petitioner gas cylinder had bursted, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having a valid license. The burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was not having any valid license. Since all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case merely on the statement of ASI Mohari Lal [PW-5] that during interrogation it came to his notice that the petitioner was not having valid license and the statement made by PW-11 Nathsingh, Investigating Officer, it is not sufficient to convict the petitioner, merely on the basis of statement made by defence witness. 19. Having noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court has to examine what is the effect of the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is a well established legal position that if the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence, conviction of the accused cannot be sustained on the inculpatory part of the statement of accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 20. A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Rajbir, to which I was party being author of the same has observed as under:- "15. In 'Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, (1963) 65 PLR 561 , it was held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 342 in old Code of Criminal Procedure) is to be taken as a whole and the Court cannot rely upon a part of the statement, which is incriminative in nature and exclude the exculpatory part of the statement. The 3- Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Narain Singh's case (supra) observed as under: 8. ...Examination under Section 342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation - if any, of the incident which forms the subject matter of the charge and his defence. By Sub-section (3), the answers given by the accused may "be taken into consideration" at the enquiry or the trial. By Sub-section (3), the answers given by the accused may "be taken into consideration" at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his examination under Section 342 confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him, but if he does not confess and in explaining circumstance appearing in the evidence against him sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into consideration in its entirety. It is not open to the Court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative, and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would but for the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation. 16. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in Nishi Kant Jha v. The State of Bihar, 1969 (1) SCC 347 , considered the statement Ex.P6 made by the accused to Mukhiya of the village. An issue arose as to whether the Court can rule out a part of the statement, being untrue, and rely upon the part which lend aid to the prosecution version ? The 5-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court answered the question in affirmative, holding that a part of the statement of the accused can be used in support of the prosecution version. 17. The law on Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was very well summed up in an erudite judgment by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr.' (2002) 10 SCC 236 . Their Lordships held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of prosecution. Their Lordships, relying upon Nishi Kant Jha's case (supra), observed as under: 27. Their Lordships held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of prosecution. Their Lordships, relying upon Nishi Kant Jha's case (supra), observed as under: 27. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. xxxx xxxx 30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can-not be made the sole basis of his conviction. 18. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in 'Mohan v. State of Madhya Pradesh' has summed up the law regarding use of statement made by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held therein that the purpose of the Court for recording a statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to acquaint him with all incriminating circumstances, which had emerged against him, so that he is not condemned unheard. It was held therein that the purpose of the Court for recording a statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to acquaint him with all incriminating circumstances, which had emerged against him, so that he is not condemned unheard. But the statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, being without oath, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction of the accused, as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. The statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for corroboration of the prosecution case. It was held that the proof of the prosecution case against the accused must depend not on the absence of explanation on his part, but upon the positive and affirmative evidence of his guilt given by the prosecution. It was further observed that where the prosecution evidence was positively held to be untrue, the Court cannot consider the piecemeal statement of the accused." 21. In view of ratio of the law laid down herein above, it is apparent that the sole statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made basis of conviction. 22. Having held that there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect that the gas cylinder which bursted at the house of the accused and the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not sufficient to record conviction, this Court is left with evidence of DW-1 Gajanand. 23. DW-1 Gajanand in his statement in the Court has stated that petitioner - Kedarmal is his maternal uncle and he was having gas cylinder alloted to him by the Bharat Petroleum Company. He used to stay in the house of his maternal uncle for night and cook his own meals, therefore, he has kept cylinder at the house of accused for cooking his own meals. 24. The statement made by the defence-witness is to be taken as a whole, will not prove conscious possession of the petitioner. 25. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotic, reported in 2011 (11) S.C.C. 347 has observed that control over the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious possession so also the title. Once an article is found in possession of an accused it could be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Once an article is found in possession of an accused it could be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Possession is a polymorphous term which carries different meaning in different context and circumstances and, therefore, it is difficult to lay down a completely logical and precise definition uniformly applicable to all situations with reference to all the statutes. 26. Thus, in the present case, there can be no escape from the following conclusion:- (a) THAT the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case that the petitioner was not having any valid license or gas connection. (b) THAT the statement of accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made sole basis of conviction. (c) THAT the defence evidence led by the accused to prove gas connection was on the name of nephew of the petitioner and, he used the same for his personal requirement is sufficient to infer that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the gas cylinder. 27. In view of conclusion arrived at herein above, this Court shall intend to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 28. As a result thereof, the present revision petition is, hereby, allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.Petition allowed.