AFR Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date:

2025.09.26

10:32:19 +0530 CRR No. 105 of 2016 Order Reserved on 04.09.2025 Order Delivered on 25.09.2025 • Proprietor M/s Payal Gas Agency Azad Chowk Pendra, P.S. Pendra, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh.

...Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

...Non-applicant

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal)

(CAV Order)

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 224/2014, affirming the order dated 11.06.2013 of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the applicant has been held guilty of violation of Rule 3(4), 9(?k) and 9(M-) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and a fine of Total Rs. 50,854/- has been imposed.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the revisionist/applicant is a distributor of LPG gas. On the basis of complaints made by consumers one Vijay Lal Sahu and PW-1 Kripaldas, an inquiry was conducted by Shah Nawaz Khan, Food Inspector, Pendra Road. The allegations against the distributor were as follows:

(i) That the distributor accepts bookings for gas refills only after 21 days from the date of the previous supply, and thereafter, the refills are supplied only after considerable delay, causing inconvenience to consumers, whereas, under the rules, there should be a gap of only 21 days between two refills.

(ii) That the distributor collects charges for home delivery from consumers, but in practice, the refills are not delivered to their residences, and the consumers are compelled to carry their own refills.

(iii) That in cases where consumers collect the refills themselves, the distributor does not grant the statutory discount of Rs.8/-, thereby charging an excess amount of Rs.8/- from each consumer.

(iv) That while consumers are issued receipts showing an amount of Rs.306.05/-, the actual amount collected from them is Rs.307/-.

(v) That the distributor was also found using domestic LPG cylinders (14.2 kg), meant for consumers, for running his delivery auto, which is in violation of the relevant control orders.

3. Initially, by order dated 08.10.2007, the District Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the applicant under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In Revision No. 213/2007, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide order dated 29.05.2008, set aside the said order, exonerated the auto driver, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with respect to the present applicant. Thereafter, upon fresh proceedings, the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, by order dated 11.06.2013, found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid violations and imposed a fine of Rs.50,854/-. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the said order was dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 11.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said order dated

11.01.2016, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the findings recorded by the District Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court are perverse and unsustainable in law. He would further submit that no consumer was examined in accordance with law to establish that excess charges were collected or that home delivery was denied. In the absence of such substantive evidence, the findings cannot be sustained. He would also submit that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant collected Rs.307/- instead of Rs. 306.05/-,