A KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order passed in Crl MP No.1586 of 1997 in STC No.19 of 1995 on the file of Special Judge for trial of Essential Commodities Act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) By virtue of Section 12-AA (f) all the offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262(2), 265 (both inclusive) of the Code, shall, as far as, apply to such trial. In the instant case a part of the evidence was recorded by the previous officer, on his transfer, the present officer assumed charge. At this juncture this Crl. MP was filed to conduct de novo enquiry by virtue of Section 326(3) Cr.PC, as the procedure contemplated under Essential Commodities Act is summary in nature. This petition was allowed and de novo enquiry was ordered. The Public Prosecutor was directed to get the witnesses as per schedule.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the law provides for summary trial the learned Special Judge adopted summons procedure in examining the witnesses. As many as eleven witnesses were examined. Their evidence verbatium was taken that is, not in, a summary way. The witnesses were elaborately cross-examined. As a matter of fact, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC also. That being the case there is no need to conduct de novo enquiry. The succeeding officer can certainly rely on the evidence available on record. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Mukesh etc. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Crl.LJ 2439. The scope of applicability of Section 326(3) of Cr.PC is considered in this case. The Court held :