Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the judgment dated 23.9.1989 recorded by the then Special Judge Vaishali in G.R. No. 791 of 1985 convicting the appellant under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ("the Act", in short), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The only point that has been urged before me is that the witnesses in this case were examined and cross-examined by 6.6.1989 and the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.", in short) on 19.6.1989 whereas judgment was delivered by Sri S.N. Pathak in whose Court this case was received on transfer on 5.9.1989. 3. Sri N.K. Agrawal, earned Counsel for the appellant argued that this judgment was delivered by Special Judge who had not recorded evidence of any witness nor had examined the appellant under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. whereas the case was tried summarily, and since the judgment was based on the evidence of witnesses recorded by his learned predecessor, the judgment could not be sustained under law under the provision of Sec. 326(3) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Under the provisions of Sec. 12-AA(1)(f) of the Act, all the offences under the Act are to be tried in summary way and to such trial the provision of Sections 262 to 265 of the Cr.P.C. are to apply. This case was, thus, tried summarily. 5. Sec. 326 of the Code provides that whenever any Judge or Magistrate, after having heard and recorded whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Judge or Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the Judge or Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself. By virtue of Sub-sec. (2), the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) aforesaid would also apply to a transferee Court. 6. However, Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 326 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that nothing in this section would apply to summary trials. Therefore, if in a case tried summarily by a Magistrate or a Judge evidence has not been recorded by the Magistrate or Judge, pronouncing the judgment, that is not legal. 6. However, Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 326 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that nothing in this section would apply to summary trials. Therefore, if in a case tried summarily by a Magistrate or a Judge evidence has not been recorded by the Magistrate or Judge, pronouncing the judgment, that is not legal. By virtue of the provisions aforesaid, the evidence is to be recorded de novo by such succeeding Magistrate or Judge. 7. Same has been held by this Court in the case of Nath Mal Kabra and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar 1990 (1) PUR 477, as well in the case of Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala V/s. State of Bihar 2000 (48)(1) BUR 336. 8. Since the learned Special Judge deciding the case by delivering the judgment had relied upon the evidence recorded not by himself, the judgment cannot be sustained. 9. To consider, in such circumstance, as to whether it would be desirable to remand the case for trial de novo, it will appear that this case was instituted as back as in the year 1985 in which the appellant had appeared before the learned lower Court on 31.5.1985. Hence, it would not be desirable to order trial afresh when the accused has already faced proceedings, till now, for a period of 15 years. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted and discharged of the liabilities of his bail-bond.