Judgment M.A.A. Khan, J.-As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, CrPC these are disposed of by this common order. 2. In S.B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, CrPC was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case. Particulars of the offence and substance of accusation were read over and explained to the petitioner on 3 1-5-1993 but after recording the evidence of one witness the Presiding Officer of the Special Court was transferred. The new Presiding Officer commenced de-novo trial and read over and explained the (sic) substance of the accusation to the petitioner afresh on (sic) 18-7-1994. However, after recording the statements of seven witnesses, he too was transferred. The succeeding Presiding Officer again commenced de-novo trial on 6-9-1995. Fortunately, he completed the trial, examined the petitioner under Section 313, CrPC recorded the statement of his witness Nasiruddin and heard the parties finally. However, on examination of the record in order to prepare himself to write the Judgment the learned Special Judge came to hold the opinion that the charge framed against the petitioner was required to be amended and suitably modified. He amended the charge accordingly vide his order dated 13-2-1997. On request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor the learned Judge permitted him to recall such witnesses for examination and cross-examination as he may deem necessary. Even after availing several opportunities no witness has so far been produced before the learned Special Judge and thus for the fourth time a “Summary trial case” has again reached the stage it was in the year 1989/1993. 3. In S.B. Cr. Even after availing several opportunities no witness has so far been produced before the learned Special Judge and thus for the fourth time a “Summary trial case” has again reached the stage it was in the year 1989/1993. 3. In S.B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 422/97 Anil Kumar the factual matrix is no flyer than that noticed in Mukesh’s case. In this case the petitioners were found in un authorised possession of 10 cooking gas cylendars and unlawfully transporting them in a jeep on 30-6-1992. They were accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 6 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (regulation of Supply and Distributor) Order, 1988 (the order) punishable Under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A police report under Section 170/ 173, CrPC was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge on 14-6-1993. In the list of witnesses only eight witnesses were cited to be examined at the trial. By 5-5-1994 six witnesses were examined. Rest of the two witnesses were given up and prosecution closed their evidence on 18-5-1994. The case was adjourned for examining the accused under Section 313, CrPC However, the Presiding Officer was transferred and therefore, the new Special Judge, appointed to that Court, ordered on 11-8-1994 for de-novo trial of the case. Particulars of offences and substance of accusation as had been read over and explained to the accused earlier on 6-8-1993 were again read over and explained. After examining 5 witnesses in the second round the prosecution evidence was closed on 22-3-1996. The accused were examined on 29-3-1996 and after availing opportunity to produce their witnesses in defence they finally informed the Court on 27-4-1996 that they intended to produce no witness in their defence. The case was fixed for final arguments before the case would have been finally heard the Asstt. Public Prosecutor moved an applications under Section 311, CrPC on 5-6-1996. In that application it was prayed that inadvertently the seized cylenders could not marked exhibits at the trial, therefore, the same as also the witnesses of their seizure be called for. The seized cylenders were called for and after examining two witnesses the A.P.P. closed his evidence on 3-10-1996. The accused were again examined under Section 313, on 16-10-1996. In that application it was prayed that inadvertently the seized cylenders could not marked exhibits at the trial, therefore, the same as also the witnesses of their seizure be called for. The seized cylenders were called for and after examining two witnesses the A.P.P. closed his evidence on 3-10-1996. The accused were again examined under Section 313, on 16-10-1996. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on 5-11-1996 but when such arguments were being concluded on 8-11 -1996 the learned Special Judge formed the opinion that the charges framed against the accused were required to be suitably amended and modified. He did accordingly. The A.P.P. examined four witnesses again after amendment of the charge and the case is being adjourned for recording the statement of the remaining prosecution witnesses. 4. That is ail there is to the factual aspect of the proceeding in the two cases. 5. Mr. A.S. Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while opening his arguments on 16-7-1997 in the case of Anil Kumar and another petitioners strongly objected against the manner the cases under the Act were being tried in almost all the Courts of Special Judges, appointed under Section 12A(2) all over the State. The learned Counsel submitted that offences under the Act are required to be tried in a summary way with the object that early concoctions of the offenders may dissuade them from carrying on their anti-economy and anti-people activities and such convictions may leave their impact on the morals of the people and may keep their faith and confidence intact in the criminal justice delivery system of the country and at the same time merited acquittals may dissuade, away and erring enforcement officers from causing undeserved and unmerited harassment to the trading and business community and may re-affirm the hope and faith of the oppressed accused in the purposeful functioning of the courts. Mr. Mr. Shekhawat further submitted that the summary trials of the offences under the Act are facing a situation worse than that the regular trials in various Courts in as much as in a regular trial the accused at least knows that sooner or later a “day of Judgment ” would arrive but in a summary trial, as are being held in all the Courts of Special Judges, an accused does not know whether any such day would ever arrive at, as on the charge of the Presiding Officer his successor shall have to commence the trial de-noyo. Mr. Shekhawat submitted that the procedure being adopted in the trial of such cases has left every body concerned in a state of high and dry and such a procedure is shockingly and painfully infringing the fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 as a speedy trial has been recognised as a part of the right to life and liberty of the citizen. On being made aware of such a situation with regard to the summary trials or offences under the Act the Registrar, Rajasthan High, Court was required to inform the Court as to whether there were any orders/instructions issued by the High Court regulating the trials of summary cases and the transfer policy of the Presiding Officers, appointed to hear such cases. The Registrar has furnished some information in that behalf A general notice was issued to the Bar requesting the learned Members of the Bar to aside the Court with their valuable learning of the subject and knowledge of the legal position, governing the trials of summary cases in this State and other States in the country. The Registry was also directed to submit a list of all such cases as are pending for orders in this Court and also fix them for hearing. Only five or six petitions applications were reported pending here. They all were heard as and when those were listed for hearing. I must record my thanks to the learned Members of the Bar here to have taken great pains in making me aware of the factual as well as legal position with regard to the trial of offences under the Act in a summary way in the State, 6. They all were heard as and when those were listed for hearing. I must record my thanks to the learned Members of the Bar here to have taken great pains in making me aware of the factual as well as legal position with regard to the trial of offences under the Act in a summary way in the State, 6. In main it was brought to my notice that in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma & Sons vs. State of Rajasthan 1984 WLN 405 : (1985 CriLJ 442) this Court held that the provisions of Section 12AA are mandatory and have an overriding effect. Then in the case of Ramesh Chand vs. State 1986 CriLR (Raj) 734 this Court took the view that of the trial got vitiated de-novo proceedings shall have to be taken. In the case of B.C. Jain and Sons vs. State of Rajasthan 1987 Raj LW 401 though the case of Ram Prasad Sharma (supra) was referred to yet the character of Section 12AA with particular reference to clause (f) of Sub-section (1) was not discussed. Finally, in the case of Prakash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1991 CriLJ (Raj) 446 it was held by this Court that proceedings under Section 12AA r/w Section 317 of the Act are summary proceedings of the provisions contained in Section 326, CrPC are not applicable to such proceedings and, therefore, the successor Special Judge has no authority under the law to proceed with the trial of the case from the stage at which his predecessor in office left the case. A successor Judge shall have to try the case de-novo in a summary way as provided under Section 12AA of the Act. A successor Judge shall have to try the case de-novo in a summary way as provided under Section 12AA of the Act. It was submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand (supra) holds the field and since an offence under Section 7,8 or 9 of the Act cannot be tried in a way other than the summary way as laid down in Sections 260 to 265 of the CrPC, there is no way out for the successor Judge to start de-novo trial of the offences under the Act in a summary way notwithstanding the fact that the predecessor Judge might have even completed the trial heard the parties finally and reserved his order at Judgment but would not pronounce the same on account of his ceasing to be the Presiding Officer of the Special Court due to transfer, retirement or death. It was pointed out that the procedure of a warrant case being in applicable to the trial of offences under the Act trials of such offences in a summary way being not completed for any of the reasons stated above any case under the Act has hardly seen the “day of Judgment ” and due to repeated de-novo trials of such cases the accused therein are being prosecuted for indefinite periods to arrive at an unknown and uncertain destination. .7. The arguments advanced at Bar before (sic) the raise certain questions of vital and important significance. I, therefore, propose to examine the legal issues raised in the context of the administration of the Act before me somewhat analytically, critically and exhaustively. In main the following two questions arise for serious consideration, viz. .(1) Whether the provisions contained in clause (f) of Section 12AA(1) and Section 12AA(2) admit of the adoption, in no circumstances whatsoever, of a procedure other than the procedure of summary trial for the trial of the offences under the Act with or without offences under other Acts? .(2) Whether the evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12 A(2), cannot be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act.? .8. .(2) Whether the evidence recorded by a Special Judge, who is duly appointed as such under Section 12 A(2), cannot be read in evidence by his successor-in-office in a case tried in a summary way or in the way of summons case or a warrant case under Section 12AA of the Act.? .8. Before I proceed to search out the answers to the two questions, formulated as above, it would be, I think, useful to briefly refer to the legislative back ground and circumstances under which the provisions contained in Sections 12A and 12AA came to be inserted in the Act. It may be recalled that the Act had replaced the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 which expired on 26-1-1-955. The implementation and administration of the Act, however, attracted widespread public criticism of the manner in which some section of the traders and the middle men were able to get over and render in effective the legal measures which had been devised for the maintenance and equitable distribution and supply of essential commodities to the consumer community. Though several orders issued by some of the State Govts. Under section 3 of the Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 provided for summary trials for offences covered by such Orders yet it was felt that the improvement over such procedure in order to make the trial of offences under the Act generally quick and effective, be immediately made to ensure proper supply and distribution of essential commodities to the community and to bring the offences against the Act to book as early as possible. Amending Act No. 47 of 1964 was accordingly passed for the purpose. There after, in order to make the provisions of the Act more strict with regard to the confiscation of the essential commodities, against which or in respect of which offence under the Act was committed and forfeiture of the packages, vehicles, animals etc., involve in the contravention of the relevant Order Amending Act No. 23 of 1966 was passed. There after, in order to make the provisions of the Act more strict with regard to the confiscation of the essential commodities, against which or in respect of which offence under the Act was committed and forfeiture of the packages, vehicles, animals etc., involve in the contravention of the relevant Order Amending Act No. 23 of 1966 was passed. The Act was further amended by Amending Act No 36 of 1967 which made the offences under the Act cognizable and bailable, raised the maximum punishment to 5 years from three years imprisonment, prescribed impositions of minimum punishment of six months imprisonment to habitual offenders, did away with the requirement of proof of mens rea on the part of the offenders in the commission of offences under the act and extended the life of summary trial* 1967 to 3 1-12-196. Amending Act No.66 of 1971, apart from amending the provision relating. to search and seizures of covering and receptacles, procedure for fixation of prices food grains edible oil seeds or edible oils, delegation of powers to pass Orders Under Section 3 so State Govt. and issuing of notifications by officers and other authorities under such delegated powers, brought about some significant changes in the principal Act. Section 12A, as originally inserted by the Amending Act No. 47 of 1964 empowered the Central Govt. to specify any order made under section 3 of the Act, by issue of a notification, to be a Special order the contravention of which may be tried in a summary way by a Special Judge. The Act of 1964 had inserted a new Section 8 A in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, empowering the Special Judge, trying an offence, specified Under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the offence, covered by Section 12A, to try such offence in a summary way. The amendments so brought about by the Amending Act of 1964 in the area of trials of certain offences under the specified special orders were to remain in force for a short period in the beginning but the period of their operation had been extended from time to time by subsequent Amending Acts. The amendments so brought about by the Amending Act of 1964 in the area of trials of certain offences under the specified special orders were to remain in force for a short period in the beginning but the period of their operation had been extended from time to time by subsequent Amending Acts. By Amending Act of 1971 it was considered desirable to place Section 12 A of the Act and Section 8A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 permanently on this statute Book looking to the continued violation and contravention of the Act and the orders made thereunder the offences under the Act were made non-bailable by Amending Act No. 30 of 1974 and by Amending Act No. 32 of 1976 the definition of " Collector” was widened to give teeth to the drive against headers and profiteers (sic). Then there came the Amending Act of 1981 which made certain drastic changes particularly in the matter of prosecutions and penalties. All the offences under the Act were made non-bailable and triable as a summary way by a Special Court only. Provisions for imposition of the minimum mandatory imprisonment for a period of not less than three months for all offences, save those excepted in the Proviso to Section 8 and for enhancement of the term of imprisonment awardable in a summary trial from one year to two years were made. By Act 42 of 1986 Section 6E debarring jurisdiction of the Courts from making orders with regards to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any seized essential commodity was inserted. The scope of the Section 12AA, inserted by Amending Act No. 18 of 1981, was widened by empowering the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences under the Act on complaints filed by authorised officers of the Central and State Govts. By subsequent Amending Act No. 73 of 1986, a right to approach the Special Court was given to aggrieved .consumers and recognised consumer associations. By subsequent Amending Act No. 73 of 1986, a right to approach the Special Court was given to aggrieved .consumers and recognised consumer associations. This narration of the legislative history of the Act helps us to ascertain the conditions which led to the insertion and there after drastic amendment or modification of Sections 12A and 12AA in the present form and which conditions persuaded the legislaters to make the provisions under the Act, relating to bails, search, seazures and confiscations trial of offences and penalties and punishments more and more stringent by repeatedly amending the Principal Act. 9. HereI may observe that the Act is a piece of welfare legislation made to provide, in the interest of general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain essential commodities. Since this piece of legislation seeks to implement and executive socio-economic programme and plan of the State of regulating the production, supply and distribution of certain essential commodities in the interest of the general public a constructive attitude is required to be adopted in interpreting various provisions in the Act. Therefore, effort should be made to harmonige seemingly contradictory and conflicting provisions in the Act in a maimer which may ensure coherence and consistency between them and may help promote and advance the object and purpose of the Act and curb and do away with the mischief intended to be redressed by it. It is particularly so when provisions governing the rules of procedure are to be construed. In the construction of such provisions it is well to be remembered that rules of procedure are intended to advance justice and not to defeat it. Therefore, a construction of such provisions, which promotes and advances the remedy should always be preferred to the one which prevents it. 10. In the construction of such provisions it is well to be remembered that rules of procedure are intended to advance justice and not to defeat it. Therefore, a construction of such provisions, which promotes and advances the remedy should always be preferred to the one which prevents it. 10. In the case of Chitranjan Dass vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 1696 : (1963 (2) CriLJ 534), the particulars regarding date or time relating to the alleged criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money were not mentioned in the charge Gajendragadkar, J. (as the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court then was) made the following pertinent observation on the point in that behalf in Para 7 “of the report In this connection, it may be relevant to bear in mind that the requirements of procedure are generally intended to subserve the ends of justice and so, undue emphasis on mere technicalities in respect of matters which are not of vital or important significance in a criminal trial, may sometimes frustrate the ends of justice. Where the provisions prescribed by the law of procedure are intended to be mandatory, the Legislature indicates its intention in that behalf clearly and contravention of such mandatory provisions may introduce a serious infirmity in the proceedings themselves; but where the pro visions, made by the law of procedure are not of vital importance, but are, nevertheless, intended to be observed, their breach may not necessarily vitiate the trial unless it is shown that the contravention in question has caused prejudice to the accused. This position is made clear by sections 535 and 537, CrPC. .11. The above principle, governing the construction of procedural provisions in a statute, has all along been followed in subsequent decisions. Of late in the case of D.D.A. vs. Skipper Construction (1996) 1 SCC 272 : ( AIR 1996 SC 715 ), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that: The rules of procedure and for principles of natural justice are not meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheels of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is the duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind slowly and grind well and timely The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft and supine and spineless. .(Emphasis supplied) 12. The wheels of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is the duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind slowly and grind well and timely The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft and supine and spineless. .(Emphasis supplied) 12. Itis in the light of the above principles that the relevant provisions in the Act and in other sister enactments, regarding the subject-matter of the law questions framed to decide the present petitions, are required to be examined and construed. .13. Our search to the answer to question No. 1 must first take as to the relevant provisions in the Act which may be reproduced as under: Section 12-AA. Offences triable by special courts.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code :- .(a) all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more special Courts that one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court: .(b) to(e) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx .(f) all offences under this Act shall be tries in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial: Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special Court to was a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. .(g) when trying an offence under this Act a special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act, which the accused may, under the Code by charged at the same trial: Provided that such other offence is, under any law for the time being in force, triable in a summary way: Provided further that in the case of any conviction for such other offence in such trial, it shall not be lawful for the special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding the term provided for conviction in a summary trial under such other law. .Section 7 : Penalties.-(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3.-(a) he shall be punishable. .Section 7 : Penalties.-(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3.-(a) he shall be punishable. (1) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine .(2) If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2-A) If any person convicted of an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 14. A close study of Section 12AA (i)(a) shows that all offences are intended to be tried only by a Special Judge. The stress in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) is on the trial of Case by the Special Courts only, which are created Under Section 12A for the purpose. The use of the word “only” in the language of clause (a) expresses the anxiety of the legislature that the offences under the Act, which in their very nature are offences against the society at large likely to be committed by persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, storing and selling the specified essential commodities, should be tried by such experienced persons from the legal profession who have acquired the qualification of being appointed to the High Court or have worked for at least one year as Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges. The appointment of such experienced persons to man the posts or office of the Special Courts was in conformity with the scheme underlying the Act. The appointment of such experienced persons to man the posts or office of the Special Courts was in conformity with the scheme underlying the Act. Offences under the Act were intended, from the very beginning of the Act, to be tried speedily. Trial by a summary way is simply one of the recognised mode of speedy trial summary trial is, in general, meant for and adopted for punishable offenders of petty offences contemplated by Section 206, CrPC But offences under the Act were not, save those contemplated by Section 7(1 )(i), petty offences. Besides being anti-people, those were anti-economy of the country also. The trial of such offences speedily was therefore handed over to the experienced Special Judges and they were directed to try such offences in a summary way. 15. Now on coining to clause (f) of Section 12AA (1) we may note in the language of this clause though it has been mandated that all offences under the Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall apply to such trial, yet the mandate given in clause (a) by the use of the word “only” in the context of trial of the offences by the Special Court is missing, though again, in the phraseology of both the provisions contained in clause (a) and clause (f) the auxiliary verb “shall” has been used. Then, it may further be noted that the rigours of the mandate contained in clause (i have further been taken away to some extent by the use of the expression “as per as may be” in the language of clause (f). It must, therefore, logically follow that the mandate, as contained in clause (I) with reference to the trial of offences under the Act in a summary way is not of that degree of compulsion which is there in the mandate contained in clause (a) with reference to the requirement of the trial of the offences under the Act by Special Courts. It follows, therefore, that where as no departure can be made from the mandate in clause (a) that the offences under the Act cannot be tried by a Court other than a Special Court constituted Under Section 12A (1), a departure from the mandate in clause (1 with regard to the trial of the offences in a summary way, may reasonably be made if the facts and circumstances of a given case so warrant and require. Therefore there is a basic difference between the characters of the two provisions viz clause (a) and clause (f), as being of mandatory nature. Whereas a departure from the mandate contained in clause (a) would hit at the very jurisdiction of the trial Court and a trial of an offence under the Act by a Court other than a Special Court would be without jurisdiction and would stand vitiated, that would not be the position if an offence under the Act is tried in a way other than a summary way. Therefore, in the interpretation of the word “shall” used in the language of clause (i of Section 12AA (1) reasonable construction shall have to be made of the expression “as far as may be” used in the language of that clause. The Act itself does not lay down any rules of procedure to be adopted in the trial of the offences in a summary way. Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which stands applied to the Act by virtue of Section 12AC speaks of summary trials and Section 262 therein lays down the procedure for summary trials. It provides a