SATYA NARAIN & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but important point has been raised in this case that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, has no jurisdiction express or implied to try the case under Essential Commodities Act after the creation of the Special Courts in pursuance of S. 12 AA of the Essential Commodities Act as amended by the Act of 1981.

(2.) On 29th April, 1982, District Supply Officer, Bundi Shri Shrinath Sharma, checked the shop of Maheshwari Brothers of which petitioner No. 1, is the Proprietor and found that the accused has contravened the provisions of clause (3)(1) of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licence and Control) Order, 1980 which has come into force on 27th August, 1980 as he had in his possession more than 5 quintals of hydrogenated vegetable oils and edible oils and thus committed an offence under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A complaint in this respect was filed on 4.11.82. The learned Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence and directed the witnesses to be summoned on same day, but the question of jurisdiction was raised on behalf of the accused and an adjournment was sought for arguments for about four months and there-after did not press the arguments. Accused attended the Court right from 1982 till 1990 almost on all dates of hearing but the witnesses did not appear or the case went on being adjourned on one count or the other till the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ramsahai and P.W. 2 Shrinath on 18.8.90 and the charge was ordered to be framed and it is thereafter that this petition has been filed where the question of jurisdiction has also been raised.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Special Court has been constituted for Bundi District vide Notification No. F 2 (23) Jud./82 dated 1.9.1982 published in Rajasthan Gazette (Part-IA) dated 9.9.1982 and therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has no jurisdiction vested in him. Alternatively it was submitted that proceedings should have been drawn under the provisions of S. 12-A for summarily trial of the case and the manner in which the trial has proceeded, clearly shown the prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner.