Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.A.A. Khan
Mukesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 215 and 422 of 1997
Decided On : 09/30/1997
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 12AA - SUMMARY TRIAL - INTERPRETATION - PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE - JURISDICTION - SPECIAL COURT: 1. The provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 do not admit of the adoption, in no circumstances whatsoever, of a procedure other than the procedure of summary trial for the trial of the offences under the Act with or without offences under other Acts. 2. The evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12A(2), cannot be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
In two separate petitions, the petitioners challenged the manner in which summary trials of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) were being conducted in the Courts of Special Judges appointed under Section 12A(2) of the Act. The petitioners argued that the repeated de-novo trials of offences under the Act were causing undue delay and harassment to the accused, and that the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Act did not admit of any procedure other than a summary trial for the trial of offences under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: 1. The provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Act do not admit of the adoption, in no circumstances whatsoever, of a procedure other than the procedure of summary trial for the trial of the offences under the Act with or without offences under other Acts. 2. The evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12A(2), cannot be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 admit of the adoption, in no circumstances whatsoever, of a procedure other than the procedure of summary trial for the trial of the offences under the Act with or without offences under other Acts? 2. Whether the evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12A(2), can be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Act in light of the legislative history and purpose of the Act, and concluded that the provisions were intended to ensure speedy trials of offences under the Act by experienced Special Judges. 2. The Court held that the use of the word "shall" in Section 12AA(1)(f) was not of the same degree of compulsion as the use of the word "only" in Section 12AA(1)(a), and that a departure from the mandate in Section 12AA(1)(f) could be made if the facts and circumstances of a given case so warranted and required.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the trials of offences under the Act should be conducted in a summary way in accordance with the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(f) and Section 12AA(2) of the Act, and that the evidence recorded by a Special Judge could not be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act.
M.A.A. Khan, J.-As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, CrPC these are disposed of by this common order.
2. In S.B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, CrPC was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case. Particulars of the offence and substance of accusation were read over and explained to the petitioner on 3 1-5-1993 but after recording the evidence of one witness the Presiding Officer of the Special Court was transferred. The new Presiding Officer commenced de-novo trial and read over and explained the (sic) substance of the accusation to the petitioner afresh on (sic) 18-7-1994. However, after recording the statements of seven witnesses, he too was transferred. The succeeding Presiding Officer again commenced de-novo trial on 6-9-1995. Fortunately, he completed the trial, examined the petitioner under Section 313, CrPC recorded the statement of his witness Nasiruddin and heard the parties finally. However, on examination of the record in order to prepare himself to write the Judgment the learned Special Judge came to hold the opinion that the charge framed against the petitioner was required to be amended and suitably modified. He amended the charge accordingly vide his order dated 13-2-1997. On request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor the learned Judge permitted him to recall such witnesses for examination and cross-examination as he may deem necessary. Even after availing several opportunities no witness has so far been produced before the learned Special Judge and thus for the fourth time a “Summary trial case” has again reached the stage it was in the year 1989/1993.
3. In S.B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 422/97 Anil Kumar the factual matrix is no flyer than that noticed in Mukesh’s case. In this case the petitioners were found in un authorised possession of 10 cooking gas cylendars and unlawfully transporting them in a jeep on 30-6-1992. They were accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 6 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (regulation of Supply and Distributor) Order, 1988 (the order) punishable Under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A police report under Section 170/ 173, CrPC was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge on 14-6-1993. In the list of witnesses only eight witnesses were cited to be examined at the trial. By 5-5-1994 six witnesses were examined. Rest of the two witnesses were given up and prosecution closed their evidence on 18-5-1994. The case was adjourned for examining the accused under Section 313, CrPC However, the Presiding Officer was transferred and therefore, the new Special Judge, appointed to that Court, ordered on 11-8-1994 for de-novo trial of the case. Particulars of offences and substance of accusation as had been read over and explained to the accused earlier on 6-8-1993 were again read over and explained. After examining 5 witnesses in the second round the prosecution evidence was closed on 22-3-1996. The accused were examined on 29-3-1996 and after availing opportunity to produce their witnesses in defence they finally informed the Court on 27-4-1996 that they intended to produce no witness in their defence. The case was f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
