BADRI PRASAD MISSIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order committing the petitioners Badri Prasad Missir and Lakshmi Narayan Dey to sessions in respect of the offence under Section 7(2) proviso of the Essential Supplies Act 1946 and against the order of the Sessions Judge directing that the trial of the case be held with the aid of assessors. The prosecution case briefly is that on 4-10-51 the petitioners were taking 1511/2 mds. of rice by a lorry bearing No. C.H. 1746 when the Police Patrol Party at Adisaptagram, P.S. Magra, in the district of Hooghly stopped the lorry and found that it contained rice and (hey arrested the petitioners who were found in the lorry. They were charged under Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies Act for possessing rice much in excess of the maximum, quantity which could be lawfully possessed by any person. The punishment prescribed for the offence by the section as amended is imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and a fine not less than 20 times the value of the foodgrain found in the possession of the accused. The committing Magistrate found that the facts outlined above were sufficiently proved by evidence and he committed the two petitioners to sessions. The sessions trial was taken up by B.P. Bakshi, the Assistant Sessions Judge, to whom the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge. Before him the petitioners filed a petition to the effect that the case should be tried with Jury and not by the aid of assessors. The Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the petition on the ground that under the existing law the case was triable with the aid of assessors and not by Jury. Thereupon a petition under Section 526, Cr. P.C. was moved and the case was stayed and this Court was moved in revisional application.

(2.) As regards the first point that the commitment of the petitioners to the Court of Sessions under Section 7(2) proviso of the Essential Supplies Act 1946 was illegal, it is not seriously pressed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners. In view of the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is 7 years, the case is triable by the Court of Sessions by Schedule 2, Cr. P.C. It is provided therein that if any offence under any law other than the Indian Penal Code is punishable with death or transportation or imprisonment of 7 years or upwards, the case is triable only by the Court of Sessions. This case was therefore rightly committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) As regards the second point, viz., that the Sessions Judge's order that the case he tried with the aid of assessors is illegal, Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not press that point also seriously. Section 268, Cr. P.C. provides that all trials before a Court of Sessions shall be either by jury, or with the aid of assessors. Section 269, Sub-section 1 provides that the State Government may by order in te official Gazette, direct that the trial of all offences, or of any particular class of offences, before any Court of Sessions, shall be by jury in any District. The necessary implication is that only the classes of offences so notified by the State Government as triable by jury shall be tried by jury and that all other offences shall be tried with the aid of assessors. This is the accepted law and it is admitted that there is no notification that the trial of offences under the Essential Supplies Act should be by jury. It is clear therefore that the learned Sessions Judge was quite right in directing that the case be tried with the aid of assessors.