RANBIR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28th July, 1995 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Appeal No. 118/41 of 1989/92, affirming the judgment and order dated 17th May, 1989, passed by the SDJM, Dalsingsarai, in S. R. Case No. 314/80, Tr. No. 528/89, convicting both the petitioners for the offence under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. The lower appellate Court has modified the sentence of three months awarded by the trial Court to one month R.I.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that on 18th Feb. 1980, an inspection was made by the Assistant Marketing Officer in the shop of M/s. Jaiswal Bhandar. At the time of inspection two boards were found in the shop, one in the name of M/s. Jaiswal Bhandar andthe other in the name of Ramsevak Choudhary. But neither the stock of any commodity nor its prices were found on the boards. On this allegation, F.I.R. was lodged with the officer incharge of Madedabad P.S. (Ext. 5). On the basis of which cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded. It is further case of the prosecution that during inspection rice, maize, dal etc. in huge quantity were found in the shop.

(3.) Learned lawyer for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners have taken a number of grounds in this application in support of the case, but the preliminary point which is relevant for deciding this revision is that the trial of the case by the S.D.J.M. was without jurisdiction and the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against the petitioners. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the date of occurrence is 18-2-80 i.e. when the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was in force. Therefore, the trial was governed by the Act, of 1955 and not under the provisions of the E. C. Act, 1981, which came into effect on 1-9-82. Section 12A of the Act, 1955, provides the trial of the case in a summary way and the trial has to be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, specially empowered in this behalf by the State Govt. It was submitted that on the relevant date the S.D.J.M. was not empowered by the State Government to try such cases summarily. Hence the entire trial before the Court below was ab-initio void and it is fit to be set aside. In support of the above contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Gopi Krishna Kejriwal v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1989 Pat LJR 1017 and submitted that it was held by this Court that S.D.J.M. not having been empowered by the State Govt. cognizance of any offence under this section cannot be taken by him and hence the conviction and sentence in such a case is without jurisdiction.