STATE OF M P Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the State from the order of the Sessions Court upholding the order of the trial Magistrate in a pending case under the Essential Commodities Act against the non-applicants for unauthorised transport by a motor truck of 190 bags of rice from Madhya Pradesh into a neighbouring State. We are not concerned with the merits of the case but that the trial should be in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 252 Criminal Procedure Code. Before the Magistrate started recording evidence, the accused before him (the non-applicants) urged that they should be tried in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 252, Criminal Procedure Code, for non-police charge-sheet case, The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that cognizance having been taken on a report by the police officer in the manner mentioned in section 190 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code, the procedure should be the one provided in section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court held that the proper procedure was the one laid down in section 252, Criminal Procedure Code. Now the State has come up into revision after unsuccessfully moving the Sessions Court for a reference to this Court.

(2.) THE matter is of some practical consequence to the non-applicants because in the event of the Magistrate proceeding under section 252, Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence will be recorded before charge, and the non- applicants might, at least theoretically, be able, by cross-examining the witnesses before charge, to establish that the prima facie material is not acceptable and they are entitled to a discharge. On the other hand, in case the trial proceeds in the manner laid down in section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the charge would be framed in any event. After that stage there is no difference between the two procedures, the accused getting the usual right to cross-examine after charge, give their statements, lead evidence and so on. Nothing calamitous would happen to the State's case even if the non-applicants are given unnecessarily, as the learned Government Advocate maintains, a double chance of cross-examining. Even from his view-point, though it would be somewhat irregular, the irregularity would have benefited the accused without seriously prejudicing the State's case. But similar cases are likely to come up, and it would be proper for this Court to lay down the principles under which, in similar cases, subordinate Courts should adopt this or that procedure This task has become particularly easy because we have got the guidance from the Supreme Court in a number of reported decisions among which Pravin Chandra Mody v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh,A I R 1965 S. C. 1185, Ashiq Miyan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1969 M .P .L.J 200 = A I R 1969 s. c. 4. ", and A. K. Jain and others v. Union of India and others are worth mentioning.

(3.) THE trial Court has pointed out that several of the rulings of this Court as also Ashiq Miyan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh {supra) deal with offences under the Indian Opium Act and as such may not be applicable to cases where the offence concerned is under the Essential Commodities Act. To certain extent it is true; but the foregoing discussion would show that we are concentrating our attention of the problem whether a report, like the one on which the instant case has been started, is a charge-sheet by the police. THE answer is that it certainly is.