Jharkhand High Court
Ram Chhabila Singh vs State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ1334, [2003(3)JCR741(JHR)], 2004 CRI. L. J. 1334, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 669, (2003) 11 ALLINDCAS 700 (JHA), (2003) 3 JCR 741 (JHA), 2003 (11) ALLINDCAS 700, (2003) 3 JLJR 617
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 15.3.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Gumla in G.R. No. 4 of 1988 whereby the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant finding him guilty under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case in short is that one Anil Prasad Keshari (PW 1) lodged FIR on 13.6.1988 in the Chainpur Police Station alleging that 10 bags of wheat were being unloaded from a tractor in the flour mill of Nand Kishore Agarwal. It was further alleged that the wheat was being unloaded by the contractor i.e. appellant and the driver of the tractor. The informant suspected that the said wheat was meant for distribution amongst the labourers or for sale through fair price shop. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Anil Prasad Keshari (PW 1), a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the appellant, Nand Kishore Agarwal and driver of the tractor Bijay Singh.
3. In course of the investigation, seven bags of wheat was seized from the house of Nand Kishore Agarwal and three bags was seized from the trailer of the tractor.
4. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to establish the charge against the appellant. Out of whom PW 1 Anil Prasad Keshari, informant and PW 2 Ganesh Prasad who have been declared hostile. PW 3, Prem Ram is a formal witness who has proved the seizure list. PW 4 Amrus Tete is a welfare supervisor, who has not stated anything regarding the occurrence. PW 5 Edward Khalkho is a Nazir of Chainpur Block and has stated that he was maintaining the accounts of labourers who were engaged in construction of Indra Awas and also account of wheat supplied to labourers. PW 6 Bhadru Kherwar has been tendered. The Investigating Officer of this case was not examined by the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this case was summarily triable as envisaged under Section 12AA(f) of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present case the evidence has been recorded by some other special Judge whereas the finding of the conviction has been recorded by other special Judge who has not recorded the evidence of the witnesses. In that view of the matter, he has submitted that as per the decision in the case of Vyas Sah v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1997(1) PLJR 991, and in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh @ Pankaj v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (3) East Cr C 474 (Pat), the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained because it is in clear violation of Sub-section (3) of Section 326 of Cr PC. From the records of the trial Court I find that the evidence was recorded in the year 1992-1993 by one special Judge whereas the statements of the accused was recorded in the year 1997 and the impugned judgment was delivered by another special Judge. Sri Pradeep Kumar.
6. In my view this case is fully covered by the aforesaid two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained.
7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant are hereby set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.