RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29 -8 -1990, passed by Shri Jiwan Tigga. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1985, whereby and whereunder he confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29 -6 -1985, as recorded by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur, in G.R. Case No. 560 of 1977.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this revision are as under: G. R. case No. 560 of 1977, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was instituted on the allegation that petitioner No. 2 Domanial Gupta is a dealer dealing in the essential commodities, in which the business was being conducted by petitioner No. 1 Raj Kishore Prasad, brother of petitioner No, 2, but according to the prosecution, they were not maintaining the books of accounts regarding foodgrains properly and there was also shortage of foodgrains on verification by the informant. The inspection was made on 10 -7 -1977. The case was tried by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur under Section 7. of the Act, who convicted both the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as above. Hence, this revision application was filed. The matter was heard on 30 -9 -1996 by the single Bench of this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners before this Court was that the entire trial by the trial Court is illegal and vitiated, as he had no authority to try such cases summarily under Section 7 of the Act because summary procedure for trial of specified offences, such as offences relating to foodgrains, edible oil, etc. was introduced in the year 1974. It was further contended that under Section 12 -A (2)(b), such cases are to be tried summarily and further it requires under the same provision that a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government is competent to try such cases. In the instant case, unfortunately the State Government had not issued any notification at that time and only the High Court had issued a notification on 14 -10 -1977, bearing No. 341 -A, authorising the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrates to try the cases under Section 7 of the Act. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the High Court has no authority to issue such notification and only the State Government was competent to issue such notification. In that view of the matter, the trial of the case by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate without any proper authority will be deemed to be without jurisdiction. In support of the above contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance to a decision of this Court reported in 1989 PLJR 1917 (Gopi Krishna Kejriwal v. State of Bihar.