Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1535
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gopal Prasad, J.
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Singh, Son Of Madheshwar Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 102 of 1998
Decided On : JULY 26, 2011
Conviction based on evidence recorded by predecessor in summary proceedings is not maintainable.
Headnote:
Essential Commodities Act - Conviction based on evidence recorded by predecessor not maintainable
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine based on evidence recorded by his predecessor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that conviction based on evidence recorded by the predecessor was not maintainable under Section 12 AA of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Conviction based on evidence recorded by predecessor, sustainability of conviction and sentence without recalling witnesses
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction based on evidence recorded by predecessor in summary proceedings is not maintainable, and re-trial is not required after a significant lapse of time.
Final Decision: The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Gopal Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The Appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-.
3. From perusal of the record it appears that order of conviction was recorded by the Presiding Officer on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The case is under Essential Commodities Act which are summary proceeding under Section 12 AA of Essential Commodities Act. In view of Section 326 of Code of Criminal Procedure the evidence of witness in summery proceeding are recorded in substance and hence, conviction on the basis of evidence recorded by predecessor is not maintainable and hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Presiding Officer, without recalling the witnesses is not sustainable. Hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is hereby set aside.
4. It is pertinent to mention that 25 years has already been elapsed of the occurrence and hence re-trial is not required in the interest of justice and hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.
