MANGAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant suffered conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause III. 6(v) of the Licence, and Clauses 6(a) and 7 of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, on being tried by Special Judge, Samastipur in G.R. Case No. 2352 of 1983 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years on that count.

(2.) The factual matrixm Business premises of the appellant was inspected by Shri Balram Prasad Das, Executive Magistrate Dalsinghsarai in the company of other officials, and on physical verification of the foodgrains stored in the business premises. It was noticed that the stock had exceeded the store limit prescribed under the rules and also that the stock register cash memo, and other relevant papers were not found in the shop. The display board hung in the shop was not written in legible manner. In the eventual trial the State examined altogether 8 witnesses including the Reporting Officer, and defence too examined witnesses in equal numbers and the trial Court, on appreciation of evidences, rendered verdict of guilt finding the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) The finding recorded by the trial Court was sought to be assailed by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant on premises that apart from other infirmities in the prosecution evidences which make them unworthy of credence the finding recorded by the trial court was not sustainable in law for the reason that as Sri Kripa Shambhu Sharan. Special Judge (E.C. Act). Samastipur empowered for trial of cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act at Samastipur, who recorded evidence of the prosecution witnesses was succeeded by Shri S.K. Gupta Special Judge, Samastsipur who eventually rendered finding on strength of evidences partly recorded by Shri Sharan, the trial of the appellant in the Court below was ab initio void, and hence the sentence passed thereunder was not maintainable. It is sought to be urged that as the trial Judge who rendered verdict of guilt against the appellant had not recorded entire evidence the case having been registered under Essential Commodities Act which was summarily triable under the provisions of Section 326(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the successor Court was not competent to use the evidence recorded by his predecessor and no finding should have been recorded without recall of the witnesses.