SURAJ PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners stand convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and have been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

(2.) ON hearing the counsel for both the parties and on going through the judgements of the appellate and the trial Court and other relevant papers on record. I find that several illegalities and irregularities have been committed at the trial stage. The charge framed against the petitioners does not mention the particular order made under Section 3 of the Act which has been contravened so as to be punishable under Section 7 of the Act. At the stage of examining the petitioners under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Court, instead of personally examining the accused persons, examined only the Advocates who represented the accused persons in that Court and in convicting the petitioners, both the Courts have taken into consideration such statements made by the Advocates as if they were made by the petitioners themselves. Moreover it appears from the trial Court's Order No. 42 dated 31 -3 -70 that the judgement of the trial Court, convicting the two petitioners under Section 7 of the Act and sentencing them thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months was pronounced on that date in the absence of the accused persons from the Court.

(3.) IT is seen from the judgement of the appellate Court that the petitioners agitated this matter in the appellate Court by contending that they had been prejudiced by not getting any opportunity to explain away the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence as provided under Section 342, Cr. P. Code. This matter has again been raised in this revision. They possibly could not personally complain against the aforesaid non -examination as they were all through allowed to be represented by their pleaders and were absent even on the date when the judgement against them was pronounced by the trial Court. In the context of the above facts the complaint put up on behalf of the petitioners for the non -compliance of the provisions of Section 342, Cr. P. Code is not without any weight and substance.