Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.77 of 1997 **** Against the judgment, dated 18.02.1997, passed by Shri A. Toppo, Special Judge, Araria in Special Case No. 31 of 1989/Tr. No. 8 of 1997 **** Jagdish Prasad Singh, son of late Hirday Lal Singh @ Hirit Lal Singh, resident of village Dhokaria, P.S. Araria, in the district of Araria .. Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellant .. Mr.Arun Kumar Tripathi, Adv. For the Respondent .. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of provision of Clauses 3 and 16 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. The case instituted on the report of Supply Inspector, Araria, and after investigation the charge sheet submitted and cognizance taken. 3. However, during the trial five witnesses were examined. From the perusal of the record, it appears that P.W. 1 was examined in the year 1991, P.W. 2 in the year 1991 and P.W. 3 also examined in the 2 year 1991, who the informant. However, P.Ws. 4 and 5 were examined in the year 1996. 4. From the perusal of order, it is apparent that evidence recorded by the predecessor to the presiding officer. The proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act is required to be tried summarily in view of Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the in a summary proceeding is only the substance of the evidence are required to be recorded and, hence, the conviction can not be recorded on the basis of the evidence recorded by the predecessor of the presiding officer, who passed the impugned order without recalling the witnesses. Hence, the order passed by the presiding officer on evidence recorded by predecessor without recalling the witnesses. Hence, the order of conviction recorded can not be sustained. Hence, the order of conviction can not sustain and the order of conviction recorded on the basis of evidence recorded by the police is not permissible in summary trial, hence, the order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 05th day of September, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.