JASHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the appeal of the accused Jasbbir Singh against his conviction and sentence under section 3 read with section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE trial Court's order of conviction having been assailed principally on legal points, the relevant facts no longer disputed, for appreciation of points of law involved, are succinctly stated thus : p. N. Pande, Food Inspector, Raigarh, on 24-9-1983, filed a complaint in writing in the particular Court, against the appellant-accused, for his prosecution under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), for infraction of section 3 (1) of M. P. Khadya Padarth (Khan Pan Sthapana Dwara Mulya Pradarshan) Adesh, 1983. This complaint was addressed to the Court of special Judge, Raigarh, and came to be presented in the Court of C. M. Das who, though was an Additional Sessions Judge, was at the relevant time, temporarily officiating as Sessions Judge. Shri Das took cognizance of the offence on 28-9-1983; and thereafter, continued the proceedings for certain date. On 10-12-1983, R. K. Bajpai, who was duly appointed Sessions judge in Raigarh Sessions Division, passed an order, handing over this case for trial to 1st Additional Judge-cum-Special Judge Raigarh. Shri C. M. Das was the 1st Additional Judge; and, therefore, the trial continued in his Court only, till its final termination, and the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced by Shri C. M. Das, purporting to act as Special Court.

(3.) NOW, in the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has, in the first place, challenged the powers of C. M. Das to try this case under the Act. According to appellant's learned counsel, Sessions judge, Raigarh was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Special Court in Raigarh Revenue District as per the High Court Notification; and as such, C. M. Das, who was only an Additional Sessions Judge and not the sessions Judge, lacked the competency for trial of the case under the Act as amended by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. In this connection, it is also canvassed, that, this illegality for trial for want of jurisdiction, was not curable by any provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure; and as such, the whole trial and the resulting conviction and sentence are completely vitiated. It is, next, urged in the light of section 11 and clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 12-AA of the Act, that the cognizance of the offence by the Special Court could only be taken on a police report and not otherwise.