Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. As public complaints were received about maldistribution of sugar and other food articles from the Fair Price Shop standing in the name of appellant Gayatri Devi, it is alleged that Vigilance Committee constituted at the Block level, carried out a raid in the fair price shop of the appellants and it was noticed that a notice was pasted on the Board about sugar supplied to the shop being in store. It was alleged that though no books of accounts were produced by the licensee, yet the premises were searched by the members of the Vigilance Committee and also the Government officials but no stock of sugar was found in the premises. The board, on which notice was pasted, was eventually seized by the Inspecting authority and suspecting pilferage of sugar in black market, prosecution was launched against the appellants on behest of Shri M.A. Haque, Market Officer (P.W. 4), pursuant to which, investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the Police laid charge sheet before the Court and the appellants were put on trial. In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether 12 witnesses and those examined by the State include a number of Government officials, members of the Vigilance Committee, and also the Police Officer who carried out investigation of the case. 2. The defence of the appellants before the trial court and also this Court was their false implication and there being neither any irregularity nor maldistribution in distribution of sugar to the consumers, and the trial court on appraisal of evidences, though found both the appellants guilty under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, while released Gayatri Devi on furnishing bail bond of a specified amount with caution to maintain peace and tranquility, sentenced Dinesh Kumar Gupta to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. one thousand, in default of which, he was to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of three months more. 3. one thousand, in default of which, he was to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of three months more. 3. The impugned judgment is sought to be criticised by the learned counsel for the appellants on premises that apart from other infirmities that have crept in the prosecution evidence, the finding recorded by the trial court could not be sustained in law for the reason that this being a summary proceeding, the trial Judge who recorded the verdict of guilt, had got recorded the statement of witnesses and hence, he was not competent to evaluate them and render the finding thereon. It is urged that while evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded by Sri D.D. Topno, the then Sub Judge, Nawadah, who was empowered for trial of cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act, the evidences which are of defence witnesses, were recorded by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad who came in seisin of the proceeding. It is urged that the findings too was recorded by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, the Spl. Judge, Nawadah, and hence the trial of the appellant in the court below is void ab initio and, hence the sentence passed thereunder was not maintainable and was fit to be set aside. Though provisions enjoined under sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Judge/Magistrate to record a finding on the strength of evidences of witnesses recorded by his predecessor, the said provisions were not applicable in case of summary proceeding, unless witnesses were recalled or resummoned and their statements were recorded. There is no gainsaying the fact that Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, Spl. Judge, Nawadah, recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants on evaluation of testimony of witnesses without summoning them and recording their evidences. The legal infirmity that would creep in the prosecution case on account of such lapses have been well crystallised in catena of decisions of the Court and I do feel that the finding recorded by the trial court on this score alone has to be set aside. The legal infirmity that would creep in the prosecution case on account of such lapses have been well crystallised in catena of decisions of the Court and I do feel that the finding recorded by the trial court on this score alone has to be set aside. That apart, the other infirmities noticed in the prosecution case, cannot be lost sight of, as sheet anchor of the prosecution case was that notwithstanding supply of 16 quintals of sugar to the licensees no stock of sugar was found in the stock, for which several consumers and card holders had made complaints to the public authority, no evidence was ever placed on the record about supply of 16 quintals of sugar to the licensees which was yet to be distributed among the consumers. Rather, the defence of the appellants at trial was that there was no irregularity nor maldistribution in distribution of sugar among the consumers for which certain consumers were also examined as defence witnesses. Be that as it may, on these premises, I am constrained to hold that the finding recorded by the trial court was not sustainable and hence, it is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges and also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. The appeal accordingly succeeds.