MUKESH AND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C., these are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur, 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order, 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (The Act). A police report under S. 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1-3-1993 and on the same day the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case. Particulars of the offence and substance of accusation were read over and explained to the petitioner on 31-5-1993 but after recording the evidence of one witness the Presiding Officer of the Special Court was transferred. The new Presiding Officer commenced de-novo trial and read over and explained the (sic) sustance of the accusation to the petitioner afresh on (sic) 18-7-1994. However, after recording the statements of seven witnesses, he too was transferred. The succeeding Presiding Officer again commenced de-novo trial on 6-9-1995. Fortunately, he completed the trial, examined the petitioner under Section 313, Cr.P.C. recorded the statement of his witness Nasiruddin and heard the parties finally. However, on examination of the record in order to prepare himself to write the judgment the learned Special Judge came to hold the opinion that the charge framed against the petitioner was required to be amended and suitably modified. He amended the charge accordingly vide his order dated 13-2-1997. On request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor the learned Judge permitted him to recall such witnesses for examination and cross-examination as he may deem necessary. Even after availing several opportunities no witness has so far been produced before the learned Special Judge and thus for the fourth time a "Summary trial case" has again reached the stage it was in the year 1989/1993.

(3.) In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 422/97 Anil Kumar the factual matrix is no fiver than that noticed in Mukesh's case. In this case the petitioners were found in un authorised possession of 10 cooking gas cylendars and unlawfully transporting them in a jeep on 30-6-1992. They were accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 6 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distributor) Order, 1988 (the order) punishable u/S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A police report under Section 170/173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge on 14-6-1993. In the list of witnesses only eight witnesses were cited to be examined at the trial. By 5-5-1994 six witnesses were examined. Rest of the two witnesses were given up and prosecution closed their evidence on 18-5-1994. The case was adjourned for examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. However, the Presiding Officer was transferred and therefore, the new Special Judge, appointed to that Court, ordered on 11-8-1994 for de-novo trial of the case. Particulars of offences and substance of accusation as had been read over and explained to the accused earlier on 6-8-1993 were again read over and explained. After examining 5 witnesses in the second round the prosecution evidence was closed on 22-3-1996. The accused were examined on 29-3-1996 and after availing opportunity to produce their witnesses in defence they finally informed the Court on 27-4-1996 that they intended to produce no witness in their defence. The case was fixed for final arguments before the case would have been finally heard the Asstt. Public Prosecutor moved an applications under Section 311, Cr.P.C. on 5-6-1996. In that application it was prayed that inadvertently the seized cylenders could not marked exhibits at the trial, therefore, the same as also the witnesses of their seizure be called for. The seized cylenders were called for and after examining two witnesses the A.P.P. closed his evidence on 3-10-1996. The accused were again examined under Section 313, on 16-10-1996. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on 5-11-1996 but when such arguments were being concluded on 8-11-1996 the learned Special Judge formed the opinion that the charges framed against the accused were required to be suitably amended and modified. He did accordingly. The A.P.P. examined four witnesses again after amendment of the charge and the case is being adjourned for recording the statement of the remaining prosecution witnesses.