Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.17 of 1996 **** Against the judgment and order of conviction, dated 18th of January, 1996, passed by Smt. Vidyut Prabha Singh, Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, I, Katihar, in C II Case No. 9 of 1990 **** Hari Narayan Gupta, son of late Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, resident of Semapur, P.S. Barari, district Katihar .. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the appellant .. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anujit Sinha, Adv. For the State .. Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, APP P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). 3. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 7 of the Act for alleged selling of the kerosene oil in black market at the rate of rupees six per litre and forty litres of kerosene in three tins were seized. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act is summarily triable as per Section 12AA of the Act. However, the conviction and sentence has been recorded by the Presiding Officer on the basis of the 2 evidence recorded by the previous Presiding Officer who has been transferred. Since, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded is in contravention to Section 326(3 of the Criminal Procedure Code as Section 326(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a Presiding Officer of a case in a Court for summary trial can record the order of conviction and sentence only when he has recorded the evidence of witness himself or has called the witness who has been examined by the previous Presiding Officer, but, can not based his conviction on the evidence recorded by previous Presiding Officer as only the substance of the evidence is required to be recorded by Presiding Officer of a summary trial. 5. Reliance has been placed upon a decision reported in (2000) 1 B.L.J.R., 33 (Parmod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vrs. The State of Bihar) whereby and where under it has been held that the Special Judge is required to summarily try the cases under the Essential Commodities Act and when Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act succeeds others, successor Sessions Judge has no authority to proceed with the trial of the case from stage at which his predecessor had left and conviction recorded on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor without recalling the witness is not sustainable. 6. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, since, the matter concerns with the Essential Commodities Act, which is required to be summarily tried and apparently on the face of the judgment of conviction the evidence recorded by previous Judge considered without recalling the witness and, hence, order of sentence recorded on the evidence recorded by the predecessor of Presiding Officer is not sustainable eye of law. 3 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances that the occurrence if of the year 1990 and twenty years have already been passed, I do not find that the justice requires for retrial, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 22nd day of June, 2011, N.A.F.R. S.A.