SRI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This so called revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.85 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Appeal No.88/1981, whereby the Original Criminal Case No.25/79 of the court of Munsif Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar was remanded to the court of C.J.M. for passing separate orders of sentence for the offence under Sec. 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act'.

(2.) It has been prayed in the petition that the accused petitioner be acquitted of all the charges by setting aside the judgments, given by the lower courts. In the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed and submitted that in this case, the inherent powers of this court need be invoked for quashing the proceedings in view of the Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. On 24.12.75, the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Inspector, who found that the petitioner was not holding the licence and thereby contravened the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 and that he had not displayed the list of price and the stock of the articles and thereby also contravened the Rajasthan (Display of List of Prices and Stock Shop) Essential Commodities Order, 1975. After necessary formalities, a complaint was Sled against the petitioner. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for both the charges under Sec. 3/7 of the Act and sentenced him for three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. One thousand on 5.5.80. The matter was carried in appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who, without going into the merits of the appeal, decided it on the preliminary point that as the petitioner was convicted for two separate charges, sentence should be passed on two separate counts and remanded the matter to the court of CJ.M. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also held that the learned trial Magistrate was not competent to try the case under the Essential Commodities Act and therefore in view of Sec. 12 A of the Act, he remanded the case to the court of C J.M. Against this order dated 23.3.85 the petition has been preferred.

(3.) 1 have heard the arguments of both the sides.