JEEVAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by one of the accused Jeevan Ram, against the orders of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Barmer, dated 6-9-1983 and 7-3-1984.

(2.) THE matter arises out of the trial of the petitioner along with some other accused persons for offence u/s. 7 (3) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). THE complaint was lodged by a Enforcement Inspector, Chauhatan against the petitioner and three others in the Court of the Chief Judl. Magistrate in the month of July, 1980 and it was alleged that the accused persons had contravened the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains Regulation and Distribution Order, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Order' ). THE complaint was registered and the accused persons were summoned. On the appearance of the accused persons, the learned Magistrate directed by his order dated 30-3-1981 that the Enforcement Inspector Shri Gajja Ram be summoned for evidence before framing of charge. After a number of adjournments, Gajja Ram and two other witnesses were examined on 23-6-1983 and the case was then adjourned for further evidence. However, when the case was thus pending for further evidence on 6-9-83, the learned Magistrate ordered that the case should be tried in a summary manner and, therefore, the particulars of the offences shall be stated to the accused persons and then only the prosecution evidence shall be recorded. THE case was then adjourned to 20-10-83. On that day, one of the accused was not present and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 21-10-83. On that day, again the case was adjourned to 3-11-83 and further to some more dates. Ultimately, the substance of the accusations were stated to the accused on 10-12-83 and the case was fixed for the prosecution evidence on 24-12-83. On 24-12-83, one of the accused was absent and, therefore, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him and the witness Gajja Ram, who was present could not be examined. THE case was then adjourned to 7-1-84. Again to 10-1-84, 11-1-84, 20-1-84 and then to 3-2-84. On that day, an application was moved on behalf of the accused that summary trial of this case could not be held as the case had already proceeded as warrant trial and some of the witnesses had already been examined before the framing of charge. After hearing the parties on this application, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 7-3-84, rejected the same holding that u/s. 12-A (2) of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1981, summary trial of such offences was mandatory unless the Magistrate had directed, after hearing the parties by an order in writing that summary trial was undesirable. It was further observed that such a discretion could have been exercised by the Magistrate either when he was of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is for any other reason undesirable to try the case summarily but no such order was even recorded. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner Jeevan Ram has come up to this Court praying that the order of summary proceedings may be quashed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.

(3.) SO far as the question of prejudice to the petitioner is concerned, this argument cannot be entertained in view of the mandatory provisions of s. 12-A.