High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.09.26 10:32:19 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR 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. versus ...Applicant • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mukesh Rathiya, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. (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 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 3 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/-, nor is there any reliable material to substantiate the allegation regarding denial of the statutory discount of Rs.8/- to consumers. It is also urged that there is no cogent evidence to establish misuse of domestic LPG for running the delivery vehicle. Even otherwise, the penalty imposed is excessive and disproportionate. On these premises, it is prayed that the orders passed by the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned orders and submit that the findings recorded by both the learned Courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence and relevant material on record, warranting no interference in revision. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. We will now examine the evidence presented by the prosecution one by one. PW-1 Kripaldas Rama has stated in his deposition that he is a 4 consumer of Payal Indane Gas Agency. He has further stated that since obtaining the connection, he never received gas refills on time, sometimes receiving them only after 50 days or even two months. He has also stated that entries in his passbook were often incorrect, cylinders were not delivered to his residence, and even after making a complaint to the SDO, Pendra Road, the irregularities increased and he was harassed by the agency. This witness was subjected to cross- examination and, in cross-examination, he remained firm. The defence could not elicit anything from him that would render his testimony untrustworthy or doubtful. 8. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Motwani has stated that he is also one of the consumers of Payal Indane Gas Agency. He has further stated that he has only a single-cylinder connection, and despite repeated requests, the agency denied him a double-cylinder connection. He has also stated that the agency never provided home delivery, and even when he collected the cylinder himself, he was not given the statutory discount of Rs.8/-. He has also stated that although the receipt reflected Rs. 306.05, but he was actually charged Rs. 307/-. According to him, refills were supplied after long delays with gap of 45 to 70 days, whereas one cylinder lasts only about 30 days in his household, causing him inconvenience. In cross-examination, this witness too remained firm. The testimonies of PW-1 Kripaldas Rama and PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Motwani are duly corroborated by PW-3 Pawan Punjabi and PW-4 Vijay Kumar Agrawal, who have also narrated the similar facts. No evidence has been adduced by the defence to rebut their statements. Moreover, the witnesses to the seizure of the delivery auto, namely Susheel Gupta 5 and Anand Tiwari, have deposed that the said delivery auto was being run with the help of a domestic LPG cylinder. 9. Now I shall refer to the provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Districtbution ) Order 2000 in the context of evidence discussed above. Clause 3 places specific restrictions on the use and supply of LPG under the public distribution system. Clause 3(1) (c) is relevant which reads as under:- “3. Restriction on unauthorised possession, supply and consumption of liquefied petroleum gas- (1) A person having a connection for liquefied petroleum gas under the public distribution system, shall not - xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) use liquefied petroleum gas for any purpose other than for which the consumer is registered with the distributor of a Government Oil Company: 10. Further, Schedule–I [See Clause 3(4)] of the said Control Order also sets out certain prohibited activities, wherein sub-clauses 5, 10 & 11 are relevant and are reproduced herein under:- 5. Unauthorised diversion of domestic cylinder for non-domestic use of LPG. xxx xxx xxx 10. Non-home delivery of LPG refill supplies to consumer and/or not giving rebate on non-home delivery to LPG consumer. 11. Overcharging by distributor on LPG refill supplies, installation charges, mechanic charges and/or any other charges authorised by the Government Oil Company.” 11. Additionally, Clauses 9(d) and 9(e) of the Order lay down further obligations on distributors, as set out below: “9. Procurement storage and sale of liquefied petroleum gas by a distributor:- 6 xxxx xxxx xxxx (d) No distributor shall sell liquefied petroleum gas at a higher price than that fixed by the Government Oil Company or the parallel marketeer. (e) No distributor shall, without prior written permission of the concerned Government Oil Company, refuse to make home delivery at the address of the consumer, as registered with the distributor: Provided that the State Government may fix additional charges for home delivery of LPG cylinders to the consumers, as it may deem necessary in view of the geographical terrain and/or the distance in the area of distribution.” 12. Thus, considering the above provisions coupled with the statements of PW-1 Kripaldas Rama, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Motwani, PW-3 Pawan Punjabi and PW-4 Vijay Kumar Agrawal, as well as the testimonies of the seizure witnesses, namely Susheel Gupta and Anand Tiwari, it is evident that the allegations of overcharging, failure to provide home delivery and misuse of domestic LPG for commercial purposes stand established against the applicant. It is pertinent to observe that agencies engaged in the distribution of essential commodities such as LPG are under both statutory and moral obligations to ensure that consumers are not subjected to exploitation or harassment. The distribution of domestic LPG cylinders is governed by strict regulatory provisions, and any deviation such as overcharging, denial of timely supply, or diversion of cylinders for commercial purposes constitutes a serious violation of consumer rights as well as the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The responsibility of a distributor is not merely to run a business but also to discharge duties responsibly, bearing in mind that people depend on LPG for their daily cooking needs, which is a basic necessity. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order 7 dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, affirming the order dated 11.06.2013 of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Akhilesh Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge