JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case No. 10/87 State v. Dilip Kumar under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause (6), Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Cases), (Sessions Judge), Sirohi. The facts of the case may be summarised thus: 2. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer for the village Doyatra (Abu Road). He was issued a permit on February 5, 1986 from Tehsil Abu Road for 100 quintals of wheat for distributing it to the Ration Card holders. He obtained 105 bags weighing 100 quintals of wheat from the Cooperative Society on February 8, 1986. The said bags of wheat did not reach the fair price shop and were unloaded in the way. The petitioner's shop was inspected on February 9, 1986 by the Enforcement Inspector and was found locked. 3. The prosecution case is that the said wheat was sold by the petitioner in black market. After completing investigation a complaint was filed against the accused under the said provisions in the Court of the Special Judge (Essential Commodities - Cases), Sirohi. 4. The defence is that the wheat was loaded in the truck No. RJW 3693 for transporting, a defect arose in the truck in village Sanwada and it became out of order and as a result thereof he had to unload the said bags of wheat the premises of Shankar Lal Mali in village Sanwada. He duly informed the Collector, Sirohi about it on February 12, 1986 and he fell ill while making search for another truck for transporting the said wheat from village Sanada to his fair price shop. 5. After recording the plea of the accused petitioner, the Special Judge Shri Jugraj Verma recorded the statement of 18 prosecution witnesses. Subsequently he was transferred and was succeeded by Shri Liladhar R.H.J.S. 6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner was a petty dealer and is now working as a waiter in the Dining Car of Gujarat Express running between Ahmedabad to Bombay Central. Subsequently he was transferred and was succeeded by Shri Liladhar R.H.J.S. 6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner was a petty dealer and is now working as a waiter in the Dining Car of Gujarat Express running between Ahmedabad to Bombay Central. The case has to be tried de novo in view of the provisions of Section 326(3), Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 12AA, Essential Commodities Act, this would again take a longtime and the accused petitioner would greatly be put to harassment and expenses. He further submitted that even on merits no case is made out against the accused-petitioner. He relied upon Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 43 , Rakesh Saxena v. State, AIR 1987 SC 740 , Ramebal Tiwari v. Madan Mohan Tiwari, AIR 1967 SC 1156 and K.B. Krishnamurthy Iyer v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 406 . 7. In reply, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is not correct to say that the said offences are not made out against the accused-petitioner and only on the ground of delay, complaint cannot be quashed. He relied upon Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R.S. Nayak 1992 Cr.L.J. 2717(SC)= I (1992) CCR 495 . 8. As already observed above, during the previous trial the prosecution produced its 18 witnesses. Almost all material witnesses were examined. Formal witnesses remained to be examined. The complaint alleges that the accused petitioner neither brought the said wheat to his fair price shop nor distributed it to the Ration Card holders but has sold it in back market. Shankarlal Mali P.W.1 has deposed that Shanker and Bhanwar Modi came to his house situated in village Sanwada along with one unknown person, they requested him to keep 105 bags of wheat belonging to that third unknown person as the truck carrying them had become out of order and accordingly he kept it in his house. He has further deposed that the charges Rs. 150/- from third person as rent and issued receipt Ex.D./l. He also deposed that the said wheat was seized by the police of the Police Station, Rohida after 4-5 days. Bhanwarlal P.W.12 has duly corroborated him in his statement on oath. He has further deposed that the charges Rs. 150/- from third person as rent and issued receipt Ex.D./l. He also deposed that the said wheat was seized by the police of the Police Station, Rohida after 4-5 days. Bhanwarlal P.W.12 has duly corroborated him in his statement on oath. The Investigating Officer Narpat Singh P.W. 16 has deposed that 105 bags of wheat was seized by A.S.I. Sohanlal of the Police Station, Rohida on February 13, 1986 from the house of Shankerlal Mali P.W.1. The Enforcement Officer Jassa Ram P.W3 has deposed that shop of the accused petitioner was found closed for 4-5 days and it was written on it that it would remain closed from 8th to 12th February, 1986. It is not mentioned in the complaint that the said wheat was sold to Shankerlal P.W.1 in black market. No suggestion to this effect was also put in his statement. No prosecution witness has said that the wheat was sold in black market. Along with the petition under consideration, a photo-state copy of the certified copy of the application dated February 12, 1986 moved by the accused petitioner before the District Magistrate (Supplies), Sirohi has been filed. It is clearly mentioned in it that in the way the truck transporting the said wheat got out of order and as such he had to keep it in the house of Shankerlal Mali in the village Sanwada. 9. It is well settled law that mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. Reference of Nathulal v. State of M.P., AIR 1966 Supreme Court 43 may be made here. Section 12-AA(1)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act requires summary trial of such cases. The provisions of Section 326(1), Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable to sununary trials. After the transfer of Shri Jugraj Verma, Special Judge (Essential) Commodities Cases) there has to be de novo trial. His successor has also passed an order to this effect on October 1, 1991. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in the de novo trial as there is very remote chance of the conviction of the accused petitioner. He would be simply put to harassment and expenses. 10. Accordingly, the petition moved under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in the de novo trial as there is very remote chance of the conviction of the accused petitioner. He would be simply put to harassment and expenses. 10. Accordingly, the petition moved under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 10/87 - State v. Dilip Kumar under Section 7, Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Cases), Sirohi are quashed. No further proceeding will be taken in the said case. The accused-petitioner is acquitted of the said offence as provided under Section 258 read with Section 262, Criminal Procedure Code.Appeal allowed. *******