1999 (9) TMI 945 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside order due to non-compliance with summary trial procedures

A. Krishna Reddy Versus State

The court considered the applicability of Section 326(3) of the Cr.PC in a case involving offences under the Essential Commodities Act. It emphasized the ... - Issues:1. Whether a de novo enquiry should be conducted in a case involving the trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act in a summary manner.2. Interpretation of Section 326(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the applicability of summary trials and the procedure to be followed in such cases.Analysis:1. The revision was filed against an order passed in a case involving the trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner sought a de novo enquiry as the evidence was recorded elaborately, indicating a departure from the summary trial procedure mandated by law. The court considered the applicability of Section 326(3) of the Cr.PC, which exempts summary trials from certain general principles. The petitioner argued that the succeeding officer could rely on the evidence already on record, citing a decision of the Rajasthan High Court. The court examined the legislative intent behind summary trials and emphasized the importance of maintaining a record to distinguish between summary and ordinary trials.2. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 326(3) of the Cr.PC, which start with a non-obstante clause exempting summary trials from certain general principles. It highlighted the need to ensure that summary trials adhere to the prescribed procedure and do not resemble ordinary trials. The court emphasized the significance of maintaining a record under Sections 263 and 264 of the Cr.PC to determine if a case was tried summarily. It stressed that if the evidence was recorded elaborately, cross-examinations were detailed, and technical objections were raised, the trial could not be considered summary. The court agreed with the principle that the procedure followed in a trial must align with the summary trial requirements to avoid the need for a de novo enquiry.3. In conclusion, the court found that the case in question was not tried in a summary manner as the evidence was recorded elaboratively, witnesses were extensively examined, and the defence was given full scope for cross-examination. Consequently, the court set aside the order for a de novo enquiry and directed the lower court to rely on the evidence already on record and proceed with the case according to law. The revision was allowed based on the finding that the trial did not conform to the summary procedure mandated by law.