Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant is the sole proprietor of M/s Anil Kumar, Narendra Kumar, a firm dealing in sugar, foodgrains, Vanaspati, etc. in wholesale at Muhalla Sulemanganj of Sasaram town. On 21.2.1986 at about 12.30 p.m., the business premises of the appellant was raided by the Officers of the Local Supply Department including an Executive Magistrate namely, Shri N. K. Singh and Supply Inspector, Shri Gupteshwar Nath Verma. The shutter of the shop was downed by the person present in the shop when the raiding party reached there and he fled away. In presence of the witnesses present there, including the owners and employees of the neighbouring shop, the business premises of the appellant was opened and inspected. In course of such inspection, some discrepancies were detected. According to the Stock Registers and the Board meant for displaying the Stock and Price-list of the commodity in which the appellant was dealing besides other articles, Urad Dal was 4 quintals, Vanaspati ghee in 212 containers weighing 15 Kg. each, Dhania in 7 bags, Chillies in 4 bags and sugar in 49 bags. However, on physical verification of the stock found in the business premises of the appellant Urad Dal was found 15 quintals, vegetable oil in only 197 tin containers, Dhania in 32 bags weighing 12 quintals and 80 Kg. and Chillies in 12 bags weighing 4 quintals 80 Kg. There was no discrepancy in the stock of sugar and other commodities shown in the Stock Registers as also the Stock Display Board. It was further detected that in the business premises of the appellant loose tea in 5 bags weighing 1 quintal and 25 Kg. Jeera weighing 6 quintals and 15 Kg. in 11 bags and Golmirch (black pepper) in 8 bags weighing 4 quintals and 50 Kg. were kept without maintaining any account for the same. They were neither noted in the Stock Registers nor on the Stock Display Board. It is further case of the prosecution that in contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence granted to the appellant, he had stored some of the commodities in another godown over holding No. 128 of the same Muhalla. They were neither noted in the Stock Registers nor on the Stock Display Board. It is further case of the prosecution that in contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence granted to the appellant, he had stored some of the commodities in another godown over holding No. 128 of the same Muhalla. Those commodities and four Stock Registers found inside the business premises of the appellant were seized by the officers of the Supply Department in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, FIR was lodged with the local Police on the same day-After completion of investigation cognizance was taken and trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The defence of the appellant is that his business premises remains closed between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. every day. On that particular day, he had closed his shop at 12.00 noon and went to take his meal. In the meantime, in his absence his business premises was searched and articles found therein were seized. Further defence of the appellant is that on that day, commodities found in excess of the Stock Register and Stock-Display Board as also those not noted in the Stock Registers and Stock-Display Board were brought on that very day from Ranchi and therefore, they could not be entered in the Stock Register and the Stock-Display Board before he closed the shop at 12.00 noon. Regarding shortage of Vanaspati oil, his case is that the containers found in short had been actually sold on that day itself. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this case is fully covered by the judgment reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 477 in the case of Nathmal Kabra V/s. The State of Bihar. He has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 991 in the case of Vyas Sah V/s. The State of Bihar and others, It has been stated that in this case PW 1 has been examined by Shri Vidyanand, Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram and PW 2 has been examined by Shri R. C. Jain, Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram but the judgment was delivered by one Shri Gauri Shankar Chaube, the learned Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. 5. There is no controversy that the general principle of law is that a Judge or Magistrate can decide a case only on the basis of the evidence taken by him. The provision as laid down under sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be applicable in the present case because the summary trial of the present case was to be considered by the Special Judge who had no authority under the law to proceed with the trial of the case from the stage at which his predecessor had left it. Therefore, it has to be held that the conviction recorded by the successor Special Judge against the appellant, upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor, without recalling the witnesses, cannot be upheld as the successor Special Judge had not himself heard the evidence. The illegality or irregularity cannot be cured because the question arises for the competency of the Special Judge. According to the cardinal principle of law, it is a right of an accused that his case be decided by a Judge, who has heard the whole of it. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties referred to above, I am left with no option but to hold that the case of the prosecution suffers from inherent procedural defects. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant is set aside.