Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj S/O. Krishna Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021
HC-KAR
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
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIHG AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
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)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
CRL.RP No. 100105 of 2021
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8980
HC-KAR
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
