ARASEGOWDA ALIAS ARASAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-3-1997 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Special Case No. 23 of 1988. Cri. A. No. 258 of 1997 is filed challenging the conviction of the appellants for the contravention of Clause 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Licensing Order"), which is punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. Cri. A. No. 455 of 1997 is filed by the state challenging the correction of acquittal of the accused/respondents of Clause 10 of the Licensing Order and praying to enhance the sentence.

(2.) SINCE the appreciation of evidence and the point to be considered in both the appeals are common, these appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that though this is an appeal against conviction, in view of the fact that there is question of law involved and the appeals could be disposed of only on the question of law, there is no need to look into detailed evidence. He submitted that under the provisions of the EC Act, Section 12-AA (f), the trial under the EC Act is to be conducted in summary way and as such, the provisions under Sections 262 and 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to such trial. Further, drawing the attention of the Court to Section 326 and especially to sub-section (3), it is contended that under Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence recorded by one Presiding Officer or Judge can be relied upon by the succeeding Judge for pronouncement of order of convicting or acquitting the accused. However, emphasising on sub-section (3) of Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is contended that these exceptional provisions are not attracted or applicable insofar as summary trials are concerned. Hence, it is contended that when the evidence in the present case has been recorded by two different Judges and the conviction has been ordered by third Judge on the basis of such evidence recorded and hence it is contended that there is incurable illegality committed by the Court and on that ground alone the conviction is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Additional State Public prosecutor argued in support of the same inter alia contending that the procedure prescribed and non-compliance of it may be an irregularity in procedure, but as it has not violated any right or as it has not caused any prejudice to the appellant, the conviction need not be set aside on technical ground. He further contended that even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted this Court may set aside the order of conviction and remand the case for de novo trial.