Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant suffered conviction under Sec. 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause III. 6(v) of the Licence, and Clauses 6(a) and 7 of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, on being tried by Special Judge, Samastipur in G.R. Case No. 2352 of 1983 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years on that count. 2. The factual matrixm - Business premises of the appellant was inspected by Shri Balram Prasad Das, Executive Magistrate Dalsinghsarai in the company of other officials, and on physical verification of the foodgrains stored in the business premises. It was noticed that the stock had exceeded the store limit prescribed under the rules and also that the stock register cash memo, and other relevant papers were not found in the shop. The display board hung in the shop was not written in legible manner. In the eventual trial the State examined altogether 8 witnesses including the Reporting Officer, and defence too examined witnesses in equal numbers and the trial Court, on appreciation of evidences, rendered verdict of guilt finding the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 3. The finding recorded by the trial Court was sought to be assailed by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant on premises that apart from other infirmities in the prosecution evidences which make them unworthy of credence the finding recorded by the trial court was not sustainable in law for the reason that as Sri Kripa Shambhu Sharan. Special Judge (E.C. Act). Samastipur empowered for trial of cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act at Samastipur, who recorded evidence of the prosecution witnesses was succeeded by Shri S.K. Gupta Special Judge, Samastsipur who eventually rendered finding on strength of evidences partly recorded by Shri Sharan, the trial of the appellant in the Court below was ab initio void, and hence the sentence passed thereunder was not maintainable. It is sought to be urged that as the trial Judge who rendered verdict of guilt against the appellant had not recorded entire evidence the case having been registered under Essential Commodities Act which was summarily triable under the provisions of Sec. 326(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the successor Court was not competent to use the evidence recorded by his predecessor and no finding should have been recorded without recall of the witnesses. 4. 4. Though a Judge or Magistrate had to decide the cases on the strength of evidences recorded in the proceeding the provisions as laid down under Sec. 326(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable in the present case as the summary trial of the present case had to be concluded by Special Judge and as a corollary of that legal fiction the successor Special Judge had no authority under the law to proceed with the trial of the case from the stage at which his predecessor had left it and the conclusion which can be drawn on these premises was that the proceeding before Shri S.K. Gupta was incompetent the only option left to Shri Gupta was to recall witnesses and then record his finding which was not done in the present case. The illegality or irregularity cannot be curly because the trial had vitiated for competency of the Special Judge. Though other infirmities were also brought to notice of the Court, since the trial of the appellant suffered legal infirmity that has crept in, and was found without jurisdiction. I do not consider it expedient to comment on other segment or argument canvassed of behalf of the appellant. 5. Having taken into consideration the finding recorded by the trial Court based on evidences recorded by the predecessor Judge, I find that the conviction of the appellant and sentence imposed on him cannot be sustained in the eye of law and that is accordingly, set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is also discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. The appeal thus, succeeds.