ANNAMMA CHERIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Court for trial of offences under the essential Commodities Act, Trichur convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 7 (1) of the said Act read with Clause. 29 (1) and 50 of the Kerala rationing Order, 1966 (for short 'the Order') and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine Rs. 1,000/ -. This appeal is in challenge of the said conviction and sentence. Appellant was an Authorised Retail Distributor of rationed articles.

(2.) APPELLANT was the third accused in the trial court. The other two were acquitted. In the charge sheet filed by the police, the other two accused alone were arranged as accused, and the appellant's name was not even mentioned in the final report. APPELLANT was impleaded during the course of trial. The allegations against the other two accused were that rationed articles supplied by Government to the 1st accused were removed from the ration shop by him on 31-8-1984 in concert with the other for the purpose of selling them in black market. Those rationed articles were transported in a lambretta van which was noticed by PW. 1 who stopped the vehicle en route. Information of it was transmitted to the police and a head constable from the local police station reached the spot and took the rice and the vehicle into custody. On the basis of the report submitted by the head constable, an F. I. R. was prepared and a crime case was registered. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was. laid indicting accused 1 and 2 for the offence under S. 7 (1)of the Essential Commodities 'act read with Clause. 5 (A) of the order.

(3.) S. 351 of the old Criminal Procedure Code was the corresponding provision for S. 319 of the Code. Robinson, C. J. for the Full bench in Nage Chan Tha v. Emperor (AIR 1923 Rang. 31) has observed that the evidence must be recorded de novo when a new accused is added. Similar observation has been made by H. R. Khanna, J. (as he then was) in State v. Lakh rai (AIR 1965 Punj. 35 ). No other short cut is permissible under law. Public prosecutor could not find out any precedent or authority to support the course adopted by the lower court. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. I direct the lower court to conduct a de novo trial with the appellant alone as accused in the party array. No appeal has been filed against acquittal of the other two accused and hence trial as against them cannot be re-opened. . .