JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - These "are 16 revisions in which the applicants have been convicted u/s 7 of the" Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act 24 of 1946) for contravention of Rule 3(iv) of the U.P. Food Grains (movement) Control Order, 1949, and have been sentenced to three month's rigorous imprisonment each. As all these cases arise out of similar facts and the questions involved in them are common I propose to decide them together by one judgment. 2. It appears that on the 4th January, 1951, Sri Sonahri Lal, Senior Marketing Inspector, Barhani, got information that some persons were contemplating to transport grain from Gonda district to Basti district without permit after crossing Suwan Nala near village Sehari. On receipt of this information he took some Sub-Inspectors and police constables with him and reached the village Sehari at about 4 a.m. on the 5th January, 1951. He also had some witnesses with him. At about 9 a.m. the party detected the applicants taking maize in bullock carts from Goods side to Basti district after crossing the Nala. The applicants were arrested and the maize which was loaded on the bullock carts was siezed. A recovery list was prepared and then they along with the property were taken to the police station where a report was lodged against them. After further investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the applicants on the 6th January, 1951. This was a joint charge sheet against all the applicants. This charge sheet did not mention the provision of the U.P. Food Grains (movement) Control Order which had been contravened by the applicants. In view of this defect the applicants were discharged on the 16th July, 1951, by Sri M.P. Pandey, Subdivisional Magistrate, Domariaganj. Later on a fresh charge-sheet mentioning the facts which constituted the offence and also the provisions of the Foodgrains (movements) Control Order which had been contravened and the offence which had been committed was submitted on 23rd September 1951. This was also a joint charge-sheet against all the applicants. After this charge-sheet was submitted the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summonses to the applicants to appear before him and fixed a date for the recording of evidence. This was also a joint charge-sheet against all the applicants. After this charge-sheet was submitted the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summonses to the applicants to appear before him and fixed a date for the recording of evidence. On the date fixed for the evidence the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector made a request to the learned Magistrate that the cases of the different applicants might be separated and that they should be tried summarily. This request was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 13th February, 1952 and their cases were separated and they were each tried summarily. The learned Magistrate found each of the applicants guilty u/s 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Rule 3(iv) of the U.P. Foodgrains (movement) Control Order of 1949 for transporting prohibited grain from Gonda District to Basti district without a permit. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced each of them as stated above. 3. The first contention on behalf of the applicants was that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the cases as there was no compliance of Section 11 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. This section runs as follows: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In my opinion this contention has no force. As already mentioned above a joint charge-sheet was submitted against all the applicants on 23rd September 1951. There was no defect in this charge-sheet. As the cases against the different applicants were separated at the request of the Public Prosecutor the original charge-sheet was kept on the record of one case and true copies of this charge-sheet were placed on the records of the other cases. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the copies of the charge-sheets which were placed on the record of the other cases should have been signed by the Sub-Inspector who submitted the original charge-sheet and as they were not so signed it could not be said that there was any proper report as contemplated u/s 11 of the aforesaid Act. There can be no doubt that the submission of a joint charge-sheet against all the applicants was quite proper and there was no flaw in it. It was on the basis of the original charge-sheet which was duly signed by the Sub-Inspector that the Magistrate took cognizance of the cases against the applicants and he had jurisdiction to do so. It was only at a subsequent stage at the request of the Public Prosecutor that for the sake of convenience he separated the trials of the different accused. I do not think that it was necessary for the Sub-Inspector to submit fresh charge-sheets against each of the applicants when their cases had been separated by the trying Magistrate. The Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the case on the submission of the original charge-sheet and it was after he had taken cognizance that he directed that the several applicants should be tried separately and summarily. In my opinion the Magistrate was quite right in placing copies of the charge-sheet on the file of the different cases and there was no illegality in it. I am of opinion that 'he learned Magistrate had jurisdiction in view of the original charge-sheet to take cognizance against all the applicants. 5. The next contention on behalf of the applicants was that there was no mens rea even if they were found transporting grain from the Gonda district to Basti district without a permit and in the absence of such mens rea they could not be convicted for contravention of Rule 3(iv) of the U.P. Food-grains (movement) Control Order, 1949. According to the finding of the learned Magistrate the different applicants were found transporting grain from Gonda district to Basti district without a permit which was prohibited under Rule 3 of the U.P. Food-grains (movement) Control Order of 1949. As they were transporting the grain in spite of the prohibition contained in the aforesaid order it will be presumed that they had a guilty intention. It cannot be said that the applicants had no knowledge of the aforesaid Control Order which was duly published. 6. As they were transporting the grain in spite of the prohibition contained in the aforesaid order it will be presumed that they had a guilty intention. It cannot be said that the applicants had no knowledge of the aforesaid Control Order which was duly published. 6. The next contention on behalf of the applicants was that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not recorded in each case separately but was recorded only in one of the cases and that only one judgment disposing of all the cases was written by the trial court and copies of it were placed on the record of the other cases. It appears from an examination of the records of the different cases that this contention appears to be correct. In spite of the fact that the learned Magistrate had separated the cases of the various accused he did not record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in each case but recorded it only in one of these cases though it is not clear from the record in which case this evidence was recorded. The order-sheets of these cases indicate that the orders which were passed on the different dates in these cases were the same and that they are a mere duplication of one another. A perusal of the judgment in the different cases also shows that they are exact copies of one judgment. It also appears from the order-sheet that some of the prosecution witnesses were not examined as they had turned hostile but there is nothing on the record of the other cases except that of Yar Muhammad to show that any application was made in those cases on behalf of the prosecution that the witnesses had turned hostile and for that reason they were not being produced in evidence. Learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out a passage in the judgment of the trial court in support of his contention that the witnesses were examined only once in one of these cases and not in each case separately. This passage runs as follows: This witness in cross-examination deposed that the movement of wheat and maize was restricted Ex. Gonda from 9th April, 1949 onwards but later on he retracted his statement by saying that the movement was restricted beyond 16th March, 1950. 7. This passage runs as follows: This witness in cross-examination deposed that the movement of wheat and maize was restricted Ex. Gonda from 9th April, 1949 onwards but later on he retracted his statement by saying that the movement was restricted beyond 16th March, 1950. 7. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that this mistake could not be committed by the witness in each case if he were examined separately but it would have been committed only in the case in which he was examined first as a witness for the prosecution. This contention is not without some force. It was also pointed out that the serial order of the prosecution witnesses is the same in each case which was not probable if the prosecution witnesses were examined in each case separately. This fact also indicates that the witnesses were not examined in each case separately because if it were so the serial order would probably not have been the same in each case. 8. It appears to me that though the learned Magistrate on the motion of the Public Prosecutor ordered that the case of each of the accused should be tried separately and summarily he in fact tried them all together, recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses only in one case and decided all the cases by one judgment and placed the copies of this judgment on the file of the different cases. When the cases had been separated by the learned Magistrate the proper, course for him was to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in each case separately and then decide it on the basis of the evidence produced in that case. He should have written out separate judgments in all these cases instead of placing copies of the same judgment on the file of the various cases. The evidence recorded in one of these cases"could not be taken into consideration in the other cases which had been separated. In fact there was no evidence in the other cases. It is not quite clear in which case the evidence was actually recorded because the learned Magistrate has not kept any memorandum of the evidence produced before him probably because he was not required to do so in cases of summary trial. In fact there was no evidence in the other cases. It is not quite clear in which case the evidence was actually recorded because the learned Magistrate has not kept any memorandum of the evidence produced before him probably because he was not required to do so in cases of summary trial. In my opinion the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality by examining the prosecution witnesses only in one case and by writing out a common judgment in all the cases and then placing copies of this judgment on the files of the other cases. He could not do so when he had ordered the cases to be tried separately. This illegality, in my opinion, vitiates the trial. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is whether in the circumstances the cases should be sent back to the lower court for a retrial according to law. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the facts that the applicants have already been retriedance and that they have been in jail for more than a month since their conviction I do not think it necessary to send back these cases for a retrial again. Considering the lapse of time also I do not think it proper to do so; the offence was committed on 5th January 1951 mere than three and a half years ago and the proceedings against the applicants were started in September, 1951, about three years ago. 10. Accordingly I allow these applications and set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicants. The order of forfeiture of grain is also set aside. As the applicants are on bail they need not surrounder; their bail bonds are discharged.