MEHBOOB KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-10-09 passed by I ASJ, Shajapur in Cr.A. No. 184/08 whereby the judgment dated 11-8-08 passed by JMFC, Shajapur, in Criminal Case No. 1293/06 whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act by sentencing them to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- each was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Case of the prosecution was that Assistant Food Officer, Shajapur made a written complaint to the effect that on 19-1-06 Maruti Van bearing Registration No. MP/07-N/1570 was inspected at about 3.30 p.m. in presence of witnesses. It was alleged that during inspection, it was found that it was being plied by using domestic gas cylinder. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by Farid Khan (respondent No. 2) and in the cylinder 7 kg. of gas was found. It was alleged that the driver was not possessing any license to use the domestic gas. Further case of prosecution was that Farid Khan informed that Mehboob Khan who is petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle. Upon which case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioners were convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against the order which was dismissed, hence this revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that petitioners have convicted illegally while petitioners have not committed any offence. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Counsel further submits that since the offence committed by the petitioners was summarily triable, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed error in convicting the petitioners. It is submitted that in a case in which the offence is summarily triable, it is the Judge who tries the case must pronounce the judgment. For this contention learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Kanailal Das Vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 CrLJ 3231, wherein in a case of Essential Commodities Act, Calcutta High Court held that Special Judge who tries case must pronounce judgment. It was further held that evidence partly recorded by one Judge and partly recorded by another Judge who delivered judgment, vitiates entire trial. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Raj as than High Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Agrawal, 1996 CrLJ 1057, wherein Rajasthan High Court has observed that in case of transfer of case, succeeding Judge has to order for de novo trial. It was also observed that the provisions of speedy trial under Section 326, Cr.PC are not applicable in case of summary trial.