JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 427, 353, 504 and 506 and 395 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EC Act’, for brevity) and have been sentenced to imprisonment varying from a period of 5 years and fine to 3 months and fine. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The facts, as stated, are that on 13.9.2007, the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Tumakuru is said to have received instruction from the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, that there was gross misuse of domestic liquified petroleum gas cylinders for commercial purpose and therefore was instructed to conduct a surprise ride and seizure of such illegally stored cylinders in the local town. And pursuant to which, on 13.9.2007, the said Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies is said to have called for a meeting of all the Food Inspectors of Tumakuru District and at the meeting, had formed two teams to carry out simultaneous raids on commercial establishments, where it was suspected that there was storage of such cylinders which was illegally used for commercial purposes. It transpires that in the first instance, at about 9 am, on 13.9.2007, one of the teams led by PW.8, the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies had arrived at the shop, belonging to one Babu at Railway Station Road, Tumakuru and the door to which was locked. The door was said to have been broken open and inside the shop, 35 litres of kerosene in a can was found, which was seized and loaded in a goods auto rickshaw, which was brought along with the raiding party and thereafter proceeded to the area known as Upparahalli Main Road, Tumakuru and in that area, a shop by the name of M/s Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre was identified as the next target and that was found to have been closed. However, the door was broken open and inside, the team is said to have found 5 filled gas cylinders and 7 empty cylinders and one gas kit was found, which was also taken into custody and kept in the goods auto rickshaw. However, the door was broken open and inside, the team is said to have found 5 filled gas cylinders and 7 empty cylinders and one gas kit was found, which was also taken into custody and kept in the goods auto rickshaw. A Maruti Van was also found parked in the compound of Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre. On inspection of the said vehicle, it was found to have two gas cylinders, which were seized. Thereafter, the team headed by PW.8 had noticed another shop in front of Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre and since it was locked, was broken open in the presence of witnesses who had accompanied the team and nothing incriminating was found. When they were about to carry out large operations on other shops, it transpires that crowd had gathered, which prevented PW.8 and his men from causing any more damage to the shops by breaking open the doors without the knowledge or permission of the owners or without any authority of law. It transpires that the group swelled and ultimately the raiding team was grossly outnumbered and the cylinders and other material which was stored in the goods auto rickshaw was forcibly removed and the unidentified members of the gathering had carried away the goods so stored. It transpires that PW.8 and his men were roughed up and foul language was hurled at them and the clothes that PW.8 had worn were torn and he had to escape from there. It is in this vein that the Police had thereafter arrived and had disbursed the crowd and then a case has been registered against unknown persons for an offence under Section 143 of the IPC and other provisions in Crime No.144/2007 and it is thereafter investigation is said to have been carried out. At the investigation, it transpires that the appellants were arrested and on the alleged information provided by accused no.1, it transpires that the cylinders were seized from a maruti van bearing registration No.KA-05-N-1232 which was said to have been found parked in Shirani compound of Upparhaalli near a mango grove, in which area the said accused no.1 also had his house by coincidence. Neither the Maruti Van belonged to him nor the cylinders said to have been seized from the same belonged to the accused. Neither the Maruti Van belonged to him nor the cylinders said to have been seized from the same belonged to the accused. However, they were shown as being found at the instance of accused no.1, who had lead the Police to the same and it was thereafter seized as if it was seized from his possession and a mahazar was drawn up as per Exhibit P.12. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed including an offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses apart from marking several exhibits and material objects. It is thereafter that the court below has arrived at a finding that the appellants were held guilty of the offences alleged. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel Shri Hashmath Pasha appearing for the appellants would point out that the admitted raid conducted by PW.8 and his men was apparently without authority of law and in gross violation of the provisions of the EC Act. It is not the case of the prosecution that the seizure of articles was pursuant to the legitimate proceedings initiated in accordance with the provisions of the EC Act, after following the procedure prescribed therein. It is thereafter that there was an attack on PW.8 and his men and that the unruly crowd, supported by accused nos.1 to 5 had taken away the seized articles from their possession and that it was thereafter recovered from accused no.1. In the first instance, unless it was shown that the articles seized and the raid conducted was in accordance with law, the further assertion that the accused and others had attacked the officers who were engaged in their official duty and thereby had committed the offences alleged would merit consideration. If it is to be found on the face of it that there was no such authority of law in having conducted the raid and having seized material from various shops and premises without the permission or knowledge of the concerned and when the appellants were not shown as the owners or sellers or purchasers of the seized articles, there would be no nexus between their actions and the alleged offences said to have been committed by the appellants. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the trial court in mechanically accepting the case of the prosecution without addressing the genesis of the incident. It is further pointed out that even on merits proceeding de hors, the illegality of the raid having been conducted and the alleged material having been seized from the several commercial premises, the prosecution would still be required to establish the commission of the offences by the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that PW.8 had not received any information of domestic cylinders being misused and stored in a hotel, namely, Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre. PW.8 having proceeded to conduct raid without any such information and recording his reasons for believing that there was such illegal storage of the cylinders, itself is a gross illegality, which would not enable the said complainant to allege that such exercise performed by him was interfered with by the accused and thereby had interfered in the discharge of his official duties. The further allegations of assault and forcibly having taken the seized material would, therefore, fall to the ground if the presence of the said complainant and his actions were not sanctioned by law, as there is no material evidence to show that the proceedings had been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the EC Act. It is further pointed out that PW.8 and other witnesses have deposed that the shop of one Babu at the Railway station road and Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre at Upparahalli were closed at the time when they visited the place. It is not on record that the reasons were indicated and placed on record before the doors were broken open of the said respective premises. The contrary version that near the Tiffin Centre, they saw a person standing and PW.8 had asked him to open the shop and that person had opened the door is belied by the statement that the door was broken open, as stated by other witnesses and in the absence of the person, who had opened the door, having been examined as a witness, this circumstance is not established and therefore it would indicate gross abuse of process of law in the entire exercise having been carried out by PW.8 and his men. There is no material on record to indicate that the place on which the raid was conducted and incriminating material seized, either belonged to the appellants or that they were in possession of the same. When there is no nexus with the premises on which the raid was conducted, the motive behind the raid in having allegedly attacked PW.8 and his men would not be forthcoming. In this regard, the trial court itself has arrived at a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the cylinders were seized from the possession of Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre or anywhere else and similarly the ownership of the Maruti Van. The mere fact that accused no.1 had a house in the vicinity of Shirani Mango Garden by itself would not establish the nexus to the alleged seizure of the cylinders from the Maruti Van or ownership of the Maruti van by the accused no.1 or that the accused no.1 was responsible in keeping the cylinders in the Maruti Van. Even if possession could be established on the basis of the evidence and the voluntary statement of accused no.1, it would not prove that he was indulged in misuse of the said domestic cylinders for commercial purposes. Even the seizure of the kerosene as well as the cylinders from Babu’s shop and other cylinders from Shwethanaga Tiffin Centre or from one more motor vehicle, from which two cylinders were seized, are not proved to have been used for any illegal purpose. No such recording is made and no seizure mahazar is drawn in respect of any such seizure as required under Sections 100 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is contended that there was a jeep which had carried PW.8 and his men to the area where the raids were conducted and the said vehicle was driven by PW.4. PW.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution as to what had transpired at the time of the raid. The auto rickshaw driver who was examined as PW.5 has not also supported the theory of the prosecution as sought to be established from the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and 8. The procedure prescribed under Sections 100 and 165 of the CrPC, is required to be followed meticulously. The shop and hotel which were raided are in a equally populated area. The procedure prescribed under Sections 100 and 165 of the CrPC, is required to be followed meticulously. The shop and hotel which were raided are in a equally populated area. Therefore, there was no difficulty in PW.8 and his men complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed and in the absence of any procedure having been followed, the entire exercise would be illegal and cannot be countenanced by the court of law. It would therefore indicate that it was PW.8 and his men who were acting illegally and hence, would not be in a position to make allegations against accused nos.1 to 5, which in any event, cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence that is tendered and the circumstances that are alleged. The other circumstance that there was an application under Section 457 of the CrPC during the pendency of the proceedings, whereby the application was made on behalf of the accused no.1 in respect of 16 cylinders that were in the custody of the court and that the same had been released in favour of accused no.1 and that it can possibly lead to a presumption that accused no.1 was actively involved in any such illegal activity, is also a contention which is not sustainable as the learned counsel Shri Pasha would point out that though 16 cylinders did not belong to accused no.1, the prosecution had insisted that they were recovered from a motor vehicle pointed out by accused no.1 and he was treated as the owner of the cylinders. Therefore, it is his case that the Counsel for accused no.1 who appeared before the trial court, had no alternative, but to claim through accused no.1, at the instance of the actual owners, who may have persuaded accused no.1 to make such an application. This is a possible explanation and the irregularity could be condoned since the irregularity and illegality that is apparent from the actions of PW.8 and his men is far greater than the circumstance of accused no.1 himself having made an application seeking release of the said cylinders. 5. This is a possible explanation and the irregularity could be condoned since the irregularity and illegality that is apparent from the actions of PW.8 and his men is far greater than the circumstance of accused no.1 himself having made an application seeking release of the said cylinders. 5. In the light of the above inconsistencies and the illegal manner in which the entire exercise has been carried out, based on the evidence insofar as the appellants being either the owners of the cylinders that were seized or being the sellers or purchasers of any such illegal material, no case can be sustained against the accused. Since admittedly, the accused were strangers to PW.8 and his men, the ready identification of the accused and their prosecution appears to be a contrive and the accused have been implicated with ulterior motives, as possibly they were persons known in the locality. In any event, the court below was not justified in holding that the offences had been established beyond all reasonable doubt. In the face of such evidence and the court below also having held that the appellants were guilty of an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC is not consistent with the circumstances alleged. Insofar as the court also having held that the appellants were guilty of an offence under section 7 of the EC Act cannot also be countenanced, as any offence punishable under the provisions of the EC Act would require a special procedure to be followed and particularly, Section 11 would indicate that no court shall take cognizance of an offence unless there was a written report by an authorised officer and hence the invocation of Section 7 and the appellants having been held guilty of an offence under Section 7 is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the requirement of law. Hence, the learned Counsel Shri Pasha would submit that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the court below be set aside and the accused be acquitted. 5. The learned Government Pleader would make a weak attempt to sustain the judgment of the court below which as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel Shri Basha suffers from serious infirmities, some of which have been highlighted as recorded hereinabove. 6. 5. The learned Government Pleader would make a weak attempt to sustain the judgment of the court below which as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel Shri Basha suffers from serious infirmities, some of which have been highlighted as recorded hereinabove. 6. Without having to repeat the assertions, it can be said that the grounds urged are certainly require to be taken into account in addressing the reasoning of the court below. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The accused are acquitted. The fine amount, shall be refunded to the appellants and the bail bond stands cancelled.