CHANDANA SURYA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in S.T.C. No. 3/87, D/- 9-9-1988 convicting the petitioner herein for the violation of the provisions of Para 21 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979 r/w S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 10-5-1983, P.W. 1, the Drug Inspector sent P.W. 2 for purchasing some medicines from the medical shop of the accused and gave him the prescription and Rs. 20.00. P.W. 2 brought the medicine and handed over the same to P.W. 1 along with an amount of Rs. 2.50 ps. Later, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the shop of the accused and asked for a receipt. One Venkateswara Rao, who was sitting in the shop, gave a receipt (Ex. P5). Then a complaint was filed by P.W. 1 alleging that the accused charged excess price for the medicine, which was sold to P.W. 2 and thus violated the provisions of Para 21 of the Drug (Price Control) Order, 1979 r/w S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The complaint was filed before the J.F.C.M., Rajam and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 15/84. Thereafterwards, P.W. 1 was examined-in-chief on 7-2-1984. Subsequently, the file was called for by the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and the case was numbered as S.T.C. No. 3/87 by the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. P.W. 1 was called for examination on 11-10-1984. But the case was adjourned to other date, as the files were not received. Again the case was called on 15-2-85. On that date, P.W. 1 was cross-examined and P.W. 2 was also examined on the same date. The Sessions Judge, who examined P.Ws. 1 and 2, was transferred and another Sessions Judge came in his place. The succeeding Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment and imposed the conviction and sentence as stated above. Hence this revision.

(3.) Sri A. Surya Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the case was tried as summary trial case, the procedure laid down under sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 326, Cr.P.C. will not apply. Sub-section (3) of S. 326, Cr.P.C. is an exception to sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 326, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Judge or the Magistrate who tried the S.T.C. must pronounce the judgment; otherwise, it amounts to an irregularity vitiating the entire trial. He next contended that the offence took place on 10-5-1983. Now already 5 years have elapsed. The petitioner is a young and prospective businessman. Therefore, if the case is remanded to the Court below, it will cause great hardship to the petitioner. Even on the merits, the prosecution has not established the case against the petitioner. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.