Damaged containers that no longer meet prescribed specifications are not “cylinders” under the LPG Order.

The petitioner, who operated a private gas agency, sought to quash Crime No. 64 of 2026, registered under Clause 4(1)(b) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (“the Order”), read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The complaint alleged that 107 empty LPG cylinders were found at his premises without a licence or proof that he was a distributor.

The petitioner relied on subsisting distributorships with Star Gas and Total Gas for 39 cylinders, and said the remaining 68 Go Gas cylinders had been left with him after that distributorship expired in 2022 because Go Gas would not take back the damaged cylinders.

The police had sought Go Gas’s response about disposal of the damaged cylinders but had received no reply.

The petitioner invoked the Court’s quashing jurisdiction; the petition was allowed.

Whether possession of the seized empty cylinders attracted Clause 4(1)(b) or Clause 7(1)(c) of the Order.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Clause 4(1)(b) of the Order prohibits transporting or storing a cylinder filled with LPG in a position other than upright.

Clause 7(1)(c) prohibits a person who is neither a distributor nor a consumer from possessing a filled or empty cylinder, a gas-cylinder valve, or a pressure regulator.

Under Clause 2(c), a “cylinder” is a metal container used to store LPG that conforms to the specifications in Schedules II and III; the Court held that a damaged container that no longer conforms to those specifications and cannot store LPG falls outside that definition.

The Court also applied the quashing principle that proceedings should not continue where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence and their continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The seized cylinders were alleged to be empty, so Clause 4(1)(b), which concerns filled cylinders, did not apply.

The 39 Star Gas and Total Gas cylinders were in the petitioner’s possession under subsisting distributorship agreements; he therefore fell within the distributor exception in Clause 7(1)(c).

As to the 68 Go Gas cylinders, the distributorship had expired, but the company’s failure to reclaim them for nearly four years, together with its lack of response to the investigating agency’s inquiry, lent support to the petitioner’s claim that they were damaged.

The Court concluded that such non-conforming, unusable containers were not “cylinders” within Clause 2(c), and thus their possession did not attract Clause 7(1)(c).

It quashed the FIR in Crime No. 64 of 2026 and allowed the Criminal Original Petition; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.