Ram Ratan Sharma @ Ram Ratan Singh vs The State of Bihar

I.P. singh, J.—The sole app(sic) been convicted u/s 7 of essential Commodities Act and h(sic) sentenced to undergo simple impr(sic) for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1(sic) in default one month simple impn(sic)

The facts leading to the(sic) that the Appellant was a license under the provisions of the B(sic) Articles (Licences Unification) O(sic) of the public distribution system (sic) Village-Bhalua within Budha(sic) Panchayat of Nawadah district. It is alleged that the Supply Inspector (sic) submitted an enquiry report (Ex.(sic) Anchal Adhikari, Pakariwarawan. in (sic) report it has been alleged that on 22(sic) the Appellant was allotted 3 qui(sic) sugar for distribution among the co(sic) ers but the same was sold in black (sic) According to the Supply Inspector (sic) sumers had made complaint aga(sic) dealer and on that basis the said (sic) was done and enquiry report was (sic) ted. It has been further alleg(sic) 29.6.1985 the said report was for(sic) the Officer Incharge, Pakariwara(sic) station for instituting a case. Acc(sic) case was registered and a form(sic) was drawn up. The police started im(sic) tion and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet (sic) the Appellant. Thereafter cognize(sic) taken and finally the trial conclude the result as indicated above.

The Appellant pleaded and has stated that he has been implicated in this case.

The prosecution in order to prove (sic)se has examined altogether 5 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sidhi Sharan Pandey, P.W. 2 is Jadunandan Singh P.W. 3 is (sic)endra Sharma. P.W. 4 is Bidya Bhusan. P.W. 5 is Md. Ishlam.

P.W. 2 the Supply Inspector informent of this case has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has contended that in the present the procedure for trial was summary procecure and it was necessary that the same Special Judge who had recorded the entire evidence ought to have decided the case and the successor in office could not have decided the case on the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

The rationale behind the aforesaid new appears to be that u/s 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specialised for the trial of summons case has to be allowed in summary trials and Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence. Thus it is evident that in summary trial only substance of evidence has to be recorded which does of record the entire statement of the witness instead it only records the substance the statement of the witness what he (sic)ted before the court. Therefore the Judge the Magistrate who has recorded such substance of evidence is in a position to appreciate the evidence led before him and (sic) successor Judge or Magistrate cannot appreciate the evidence only on the basis (sic) evidence recorded by his predecessor. (sic) my opinion, that appears to be the rea(sic) why the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been made applicable to summary trials.

In the present case the evidence of (sic)s. 1 and 2 was recorded by the Sessions Judge, Nawadah, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 was recorded by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawadah, the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Special Judge, Shri B.N.P. Singh and the judgment was delivered by the another Special Judge, Sri Uma Shanker Prasad. As such it is obvious that the evidence of the witnesses was recorded by different Presiding Officers and finally the judgment was delivered by another Special Judge on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The special Judge, who delivered the judgment had not himself recorded the evidence. He could not have proceeded from the stage where his predecessor had left the case and could not have used the evidence recorded by his predecessor. Therefore, the judgment and order is vitiated on account of said illegality and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Accordingly, the conviction and sen-tenced passed by the court below is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He is discharged from the liability of the bail bond.

In the result this appeal is allowed.