- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100105 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARAJ S/O. KRISHNA BHAT, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. UDUPI HOTEL, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 2. VIJAYA S/O. KERIYA SIRSIKAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 3. SURESH M.BHANDARI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSIONAL, R/O. ZOO CIRCLE, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY TAHSILDAR SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 2. VIVEK S/O. BANGARYA GUDDADAMANE, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5015/2017 CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SIRSI IN PROCEEDING NO.AHARA/VIVA/44/2009-10 AND PETITIONERS BE RELEASED OF ALL CHARGES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 – State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5015/2017, whereby the appellate Court confirmed the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the competent authority under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, confiscating three gas cylinders and imposing a fine of ₹10,000/- on the petitioners. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 3. The case made out against the petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 is engaged in the hotel business under the name and style of 'Udupi Hotel' at Sirsi. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are stated to be the owners of two domestic gas cylinders found in the premises of the said hotel. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 was using domestic gas cylinders for commercial purposes, which is impermissible under the law. Insofar as petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation is that, they permitted petitioner No.1 to use the gas cylinders distributed to them for such commercial purposes. The competent authority, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the use of domestic cylinders for commercial purposes amounts to violation of the relevant statutory provisions, and accordingly ordered confiscation of three gas cylinders and imposed a fine of ₹10,000/- on the petitioners. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.5015/2017. The Appellate Court, upon examination of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order passed by the competent authority. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 5. Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 had placed the gas cylinders in the hotel premises owned by petitioner No.1 solely for the purpose of refilling, as they reside in a remote area where regular delivery of gas cylinders is not available. Learned counsel further contends that the mere presence of domestic gas cylinders in a commercial establishment cannot, by itself, lead to the presumption of their use for commercial purposes. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the competent authority and affirmed by the appellate Court, to the effect that the gas cylinders were being used in the hotel, is without any evidentiary basis. Except for their physical presence in the hotel premises, no material has been placed on record to substantiate actual use of the domestic gas cylinders for commercial purposes. 6. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 – State, submits that during the inspection conducted by the competent authority, it was found that three gas cylinders were being put to commercial use. It is contended that the defence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 set up by the petitioners that the cylinders were kept for refilling purposes has not been substantiated. It is further submitted that the residential addresses of petitioners No.2 and 3 were found to be within Sirsi town, and therefore, their explanation that they reside in a remote area where there is no gas delivery service is not acceptable. Learned AGA contends that the competent authority as well as the Appellate Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have rightly ordered confiscation of the gas cylinders and imposed a fine of ₹10,000/-. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 8. The competent authority, during inspection, found three domestic gas cylinders in the hotel premises of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 offered an explanation that the said cylinders belonged to three different individuals. All three were summoned before the authorities. Out of them, one person disowned ownership of the cylinder, while the other two— petitioners No.2 and 3, admitted ownership and explained that the cylinders had been kept in the hotel for the purpose of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 refilling. Petitioners No.2 and 3 further stated that the cylinders were placed in the hotel as there was no delivery of gas cylinders to their place of residence. However, upon examining their statements, the competent authority found that both petitioners No.2 and 3 were residents of Sirsi town, where door delivery of gas cylinders is available. Accordingly, the explanation offered was rejected on the basis of the evidence on record. The contention of the petitioners that the mere presence of gas cylinders in a commercial establishment does not attract the alleged offence, as there is no proof of actual use, was also considered. However, both the competent authority and the Appellate Court, based on the material on record, held that the cylinders were indeed being put to commercial use at the time of inspection. Such a finding, being based on the available evidence, cannot be said to be without foundation. 9. The orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Hence, no ground is made out to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 warrant interference with the impugned orders in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, in view of the confiscation orders, the petitioners have been permanently debarred from obtaining gas connections, and such action by the authorities is causing serious prejudice and hardship to them. It is further submitted that, considering the fact that the incident pertains to the year 2009, the petitioners may be permitted to apply for fresh gas connections in accordance with law. 11. Having regard to the year in which the alleged offence was committed, and taking into consideration the changes in the distribution mechanism of LPG cylinders, particularly the withdrawal of subsidies, the request made by the petitioners is found to be reasonable. Additionally, gas cylinders have become indispensable necessity in the daily life for cooking purpose. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners submit a request for issuance of new domestic LPG gas connections, the competent authority shall consider the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980 CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021 same in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the confiscation order impugned herein. 12. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13