Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) Whether the evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12 A(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.?

8. Before I proceed to search out the answers to the two questions, formulated as above, it would be, I think, useful to briefly refer to the legislative back ground and circumstances under which the provisions contained in Sections 12A and 12AA came to be inserted in the Act. It may be recalled that the Act had replaced the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 which expired on 26-1-1-955. The implementation and administration of the Act, however, attracted widespread public criticism of the manner in which some section of the traders and the middle men were able to get over and render in effective the legal measures which had been devised for the maintenance and equitable distribution and supply of essential commodities to the consumer community. Though several orders issued by some of the State Govts. Under section 3 of the Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 provided for summary trials for offences covered by such Orders yet it was felt that the improvement over such procedure in order to make the trial of offences under the Act generally quick and effective, be immediately made to ensure proper supply and distribution of essential commodities to the community and to bring the offences against the Act to book as early as possible. Amending Act No. 47 of 1964 was accordingly passed for the purpose. There after, in order to make the provisions of the Act more strict with regard to the confiscation of the essential commodities, against which or in respect of which offence under the Act was committed and forfeiture of the packages, vehicles, animals etc., involve in the contravention of the relevant Order Amending Act No. 23 of 1966 was passed. The Act was further amended by Amending Act No 36 of 1967 which made the offences under the Act cognizable and bailable, raised the maximum punishment to 5 years from three years imprisonment, prescribed impositions of minimum punishment of six months imprisonment to habitual offenders, did away with the requirement of proof of mens rea on the part of the offenders in the commission of offences under the act and extended the life of summary trial* ' 1967 to 31-12-196. Amending Act No.66 of 1971, apart from amending the provision relating. to search and seizures of covering and receptacles, procedure for fixation of prices food grains edible oil seeds or edible oils, delegation of powers to pass Orders Under Section 3 so State Govt. and issuing of notifications by officers and other authorities under such delegated powers, brought about some significant changes in the principal Act. Section 12A, as originally inserted by the Amending Act No. 47 of 1964 empowered the Central Govt. to specify any order made under section 3 of the Act, by issue of a notification, to be a Special order the contravention of which may be tried in a summary way by a Special Judge. The Act of 1964 had inserted a new Section 8 A in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, empowereing the Special Judge, trying an offence, specified Under Section 6( 1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the offence, covered by Section 12A, to try such offence in a summary way. The amendments so brought about by the Amending Act of 1964 in the area of trials of certain offences under the specified special orders were to remain in force for a short period in the beginning but the period of their operation had been extended from time to time by subsequent Amending Acts. By Amending Act of 1971 it was considered desirable to place Section 12 A of the Act and Section 8A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 permanantly on this statute Book looking to the continued violation and contravention of the Act and the orders made thereunder the offences under the Act were made non-bailable by Amending Act No. 30 of 1974 and by Amending Act No. 32 of 1976 the definition of "Collector" was widened to give teeth to the drive against hearders and projiteers (sic). Then there came the Amending Act of 1981 which made certain drastic changes particularly in the matter of prosecutions and penalties. All the offences under the Act were made non-bailable and triable as a summary way by a Special Court only. Provisions for imposition of the minimum mandatory imprisonment for a period of not less than three months for all offences, save those excepted in the Proviso to Section 8 and for enhancement of the term of imprisonment awardable in a summary trial from one year to two years were made. By Act 42 of 1986 Section 6E debarring jurisdiction of the Courts from making orders with regards to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any seized essential commodity was inserted. The scope of the Section 12AA, inserted by Amending Act No. 18 of 1981, was widened by empowering the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences under the Act on complaints filed by authorised officers of the Central and State Govts. By subsequent Amending Act No. 73 of 1986, a right to approach the Special Court was given to aggrieved consumers and recognised consumer associations. This narration of the legislative history of the Act helps us to ascertain the conditions which led to the insertion and there after drastic amendment or modification of Sections 12A and 12AA in the present form and which conditions pursuaded the legislaters to make the provisions under the Act, relating to bails, search, seazures and confiscations trial of offences and penalties and punishments more and more stringent by repeatedly amending the Principal Act.