MOOL CHAND AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition has been directed against the order dated 12.6.1997 passed by the learned Special judge for trial of cases under the Essential Commodities Act, Bhilwara.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are that Gulab Chand Jain, the then Enforcement Officer, Office of the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara, filed a complaint for alleged commission of offence under section 3/7. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the petitioner firm being a partnership firm constituted of three petitioners is trading in food-grains at Mandal, Bhilwara holding food-grains licence No. 5/80. The District Supply Officer Madho Lal Bhatt along with his subordinate officers as well as Tehsildar of Mandal, from 1.12.1990 to 7.12.1990 inspected the business premises of the firm as well as the account-books and also physically verified the stock of food-grains articles as listed in the complaint itself. Resultantly, it was found that the petitioner firm was having a stock of various food articles and food grains in excess of the limit prescribed under the terms of licences to the extent of 668 quintals and 25 kilograms in clear contravention of condition No. 5(4) of the licence issued under the Pulses, Edible oil Seeds and Edible Oil Storage Control Order, 1977 (as amended upto date) and pulses and oil seeds were found to be stored at the premises of one Shambu Lal Kabra which was not a declared godown under the licence issued to the accused petitioners which also contravened condition No. 2 of the licence so granted. Besides, it was also found that forged record was also being prepared and conditions N6s. 3 and 8 of the licence were also contravened and so the accused were liable under section 9 of the Act. Similarly, there were also allegations of contravention of conditions Nos. 7, 11 & 20 of the licence.

(3.) The complaint was registered on 13.12.1990 and, consequently, the accused-petitioners were summoned by bailable warrants and they appeared positively on 27.2.1991 when they were bailed out. The learned Special Judge went on adjourning the case for framing charges against the accused-petitioners and, lastly, it was on 30.9.1993 that the charges under sections 3/7, 8 & 9 of the Act were framed against the accused-petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and so the trial commenced. The Court repeatedly issued process for appearance of the prosecution witnesses but it appears that before 2.11.1995, neither witnesses were served nor did any witness appear before the trial Court but, however, on 2.11.1995 it was ordered that the case be retried and, consequently, first three witnesses out of the list filed and relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case, were ordered to be summoned and the summonses were further ordered to be delivered to the APP - I for service in time. However, no prosecution witness was present on 21.12.1995, 4.4.1994 or 22.8.1996. Again, it was on 21.11.1996 when none of the prosecution witness being in attendance, the learned trial Judge further observed that since these proceedings are required to be proceeded with summarily and hence again de novo trial was ordered on 21.11.1996 and the case was again listed for statement of accusations to be read over to the accused on 6.2.1997 and no substantial proceedings could be transacted on-6.2.1997 and, besides, the case stood adjourned to 13,3.1997 and, lastly, to 12.6.1997 when statements of allegations for the offences under sections 3/7, 8 & 9 of the Act were read over and the accused-petitioners were called upon to plead as to why they should not be punished for the same to which the accused-petitioners denied and, accordingly, it was further ordered that the prosecution witnesses as listed 1 to 3 be summoned and produced for their statements on 16.10.1997 and hence this petition.