Substance over label in trial procedure: full evidence recording and cross-examination displaced the bar on using prior evidence.

Proceedings labelled as a summary trial were treated in substance as an ordinary trial where witnesses were examined in full, cross-examined at length, and the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC. On those facts, the procedure was inconsistent with a true summary trial under Section 12-AA(f) of the Essential Commodities Act and the summary procedure in Sections 262 and 265 CrPC. As a result, the bar in Section 326(3) CrPC did not apply, and the evidence already recorded could be used by the succeeding officer. The direction for a de novo enquiry was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings, though labelled as a summary trial, were in substance conducted as an ordinary trial so that Section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not bar reliance on the evidence already recorded and a de novo enquiry would not be necessary.

Analysis: The proceedings showed that the evidence of witnesses had been recorded in full, the witnesses were subjected to elaborate cross-examination, and the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those features were inconsistent with a truly summary trial under the scheme of Section 12-AA(f) of the Essential Commodities Act and the summary procedure contemplated by Sections 262 and 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The procedure actually adopted therefore indicated an ordinary trial in substance, and the exclusion embodied in Section 326(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not apply.

Conclusion: The order directing de novo enquiry was unsustainable, and the evidence already on record could be relied upon by the succeeding officer.

---