JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the respondents. 2. A first information report dated 21.2.2012 was lodged against the petitioner being Crime Case No.172 of 2012 under Section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is alleged that in an inspection made on 18.2.2012 at the premises of the petitioner, the inspecting party seized four empty and one filled cylinders of Indane Gas Company and two empty gas cylinders of B.P.C. Company. Four devices to transfer gas from one cylinder to other cylinder were also recovered. The Collector initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner made an application for release of the gas cylinders stating that these belong to various consumers and these were kept in his premises, as the persons were known to him. The petitioner also got certain affidavits filed from different persons stating that the cylinders belong to them. The Collector, after considering the entire matter, held that there has been violation of the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation, Supply and Distribution) Order 2000. It has been further observed that the persons, whom the cylinders belong, have not filed any application for release of gas cylinders in their favour. As such, the Collector refused to place reliance on the affidavits got filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, by an order dated 31.7.2014, the Collector ordered for confiscation of the cylinders and further directed that the same be given in the supurdgi of the local distributor and their value by deposited in the Government treasury. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2014, which has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra by impugned order dated 24.6.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cylinders ought to have been released in favour of the consumers and the impugned orders are manifestly illegal. 4. There is no force in the contention of the petitioner. 5. Since in the instant case, the Collector has come to the conclusion that there has been violation of the provisions of the Control order and as such, he did not commit any illegality in directing the confiscation of the cylinders as mandated under Section 6-A of the Act. Further, admittedly, the cylinders do not belong to the petitioner. 5. Since in the instant case, the Collector has come to the conclusion that there has been violation of the provisions of the Control order and as such, he did not commit any illegality in directing the confiscation of the cylinders as mandated under Section 6-A of the Act. Further, admittedly, the cylinders do not belong to the petitioner. Mere filing of affidavits of certain persons, without any application on their behalf for release of cylinders to them, was not sufficient. The appellate court has rightly disbelieved the defence of the petitioner that the cylinders were temporarily kept at his premises by the consumers to enable the petitioner to collect filled gas cylinder on their behalf, after taking into consideration the fact that the first information report specifically mentions that four devices for transferring gas from one cylinder to the other cylinders were also seized. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.