1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.09 passed by 1 ASJ, Shajapur in Cr. A. No. 184/80 whereby the judgment dated 11.8.08 passed by JMFC, Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 1293/06 whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act by sentencing them to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs.500/- each was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed.

2. Case of prosecution was that Assistant Food Officer, Shajapur made a written complaint to the effect that on 19.1.06 Maruti Van bearing Registration No. MP/07-N/1570 was inspected at about 3:30 pm in presence of witnesses. It was alleged that during inspection, it was found that it was being plied by using domestic gas cylinder. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by Farid Khan (Respondent No.2) and in the cylinder 7 kg. of gas was found. It was alleged that the driver was not possessing any licence to use the domestic gas. Further case of prosecution was that Farid Khan informed that Mehboob Khan who is petitioner No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. Upon which case was registered against the petitioners. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioners were convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that order which was dismissed, hence this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that petitioners have been convicted illegally while petitioners have not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted in incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that since the offence committed by the petitioners was summarily triable, therefore, the learned trial Court committed error in convicting the petitioners. It is submitted that in a case in which the offence is summarily triable, it is the Judge who tries the case must pronounce the judgment. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Kanailal Das v. State of West Bengal 2004 Cr.LJ 3231 wherein in a case of Essential Commodities' Act Calcutta High Court held that special Judge who tries case must pronounce Judgment. It was further held that evidence partly recorded by one Judge and partly recorded by another Judge who delivered Judgment, vitiates entire trial. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Rajesh Agrawal, 1996 Cr.LJ 1057 wherein Rajasthan High Court has observed that in case of transfer of case succeeding Judge has to order for de novo trial. It was also observed that the provisions of speedy trial under section 320 CrPC are not applicable in case of summary trial.

4. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

5. In alternative learned counsel submits that the petitioners were in jail w.e.f. 14/10/09 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 4.11.09. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioners have already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioners guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurre