A.K. Mathur , J. - (1.) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners who are facing a trial under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in the case No. 38/82. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 11.12.1992 whereby the learned Magistrate has held that in view of the decision given by this Court in the case of Prakash Chand & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan (1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 446) this Court has taken the view that though the warrant trial has been completed but in view of the aforesaid decision now a summary trial has to be taken, therefore, he has given a time to the counsel for the accused for arguments. Against this order the present application has been filed on the ground that the petitioners who have been charged with offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act which relates back to 1981 and almost 11 years and 11 months have expired and still they are facing the trial, thereafter, the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked to quash these proceedings. This application has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) It is not necessary to go into detailed facts regarding the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioners are facing trial under the Essential Commodities Act since 26.12.1981. The allegation was that they were entrusted certain sugar for distribution and certain irregularities are said to have been committed by them as a President and other office bearers of the Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti, Mathili Sikhan. When the matter came up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate he found that in view of the decision given in the case of Prakash Chand (supra) new summary trial has to be conducted, therefore, he directed for summary trial in the matter when accused persons have already undergone full warrant trial.
(3.) Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in alternative that if it is not quashed on the ground of delay then too also the Magistrate may proceed and decide the matter on the basis of the evidence which has been recorded during the warrant trial and no resort should be taken for summary trial because the new Act i.e. the Essential Commodities Special Provisions Act, 1981 has come into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 by virtue of the notification issued by the Govt, and published in the Gazette of India Extra-ordinary Part II dated 31.8.1982. The Central Government has notified the date for coming into force of this Act i.e. 1.9.1982. By this amendment Section 12-AA was inserted and by virtue of that now the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has to be tried by the Special Judge by way of Summary trial. This court in the case of Prakash (supra) has held that the summary trial has to be conducted by the same judge who has tried the case and not by any other Judge. This question is not before me in the present controversy. The case before me is that the offence is said to have been committed on 26.12.1981 and the new Act itself has came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 whether the provisions of the new Act will applicable or the old Act will be applicable. So far as present case is concerned the petitioners will be governed by the provisions of the old Act i.e. the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as the new Act has come into force from 1.9.1982. The offence has been committed under the old Act i.e. prior to 1.9.1982 and according to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the offence which has been committed prior to new Act then the same shall be continue to be tried under the old Act. Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act says that:- "affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such, investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." Therefore, the case of the petitioners has to be tried by the Magistrate under the provisions of the old Act and it is not necessary for him to resolve to the summary trial afresh. He can now dispose of the matter on the basis of the warrant trial and the evidence so recorded by him. However, so far as present case is concerned, it is not necessary to go into that question because as I have already held that the petitioners shall be tried under old Act i.e. the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the procedure laid down therein has to be followed, therefore, he need not to resort to summary trial again and he can dispose of the matter under the old Act and on the basis of the evidence if already completed and if not then he shall proceed and record remaining evidence if there is any and decide the matter under the old law i.e. the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.;