Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant of this case Munishwar Pathak, Officer-in-Charge of the Awtarnagar Police Station got information through secret source that some criminals used to assemble in the line hotel of Arun Kumar (appellant). On the date of occurrence i.e. 5.12.87 at about 8.30 P.M. the police officer went to the line hotel of said Arun Kumar in connection with investigation of Dighwara P.S. Case no. 136/87 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. He was accompanied by Balram Pandey, A.S.I. and Constable, Jarurat Prasad Singh. It has been alleged that when the said police personnel reached the aforesaid line hotel, appellant Raghu Nath Kumar was present in the hotel. In course of search 4 drums of diesel, containing each drum 180 Litres, about 20 litres of Kerosene oil in another drum, about ,15 litres of petrol in another drum, 15 litres of diesel in a plastic jerry can, 10 litres of diesel in a tin and about 40 litres of diesel in another drum were found concealed in a corner of the hotel covered with Tat. The police officer seized the aforesaid materials from the line hotel of the accused persons in presence of the witnesses. Seizure list Ext. 4 was prepared. Later on it was found that the aforesaid materials were kept in the hotel to sell it in the black market. The accused persons had no licence for dealing in the diesel, petrol, and kerosene oil. Thereafter first information report was registered at Awtarganj P.S. on 5.12.87 on the basis of the written report submitted by the police officer aforesaid. After completion of the investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 8 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Jugeshwar Singh, a formal witness who has proved the first information report. P.W. 2 is Raj Narayan Singh. He is also a formal witness. He has proved the first information report. P.W. 3 is Sheoji Rai, seizure list witness. P.W. 4 is Chathu Rai. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 1 is Jugeshwar Singh, a formal witness who has proved the first information report. P.W. 2 is Raj Narayan Singh. He is also a formal witness. He has proved the first information report. P.W. 3 is Sheoji Rai, seizure list witness. P.W. 4 is Chathu Rai. He has been declared hostile. P,W. 5 is Ram Jatan Mishra, a formal witness. He has proved seizure list. P.W. 6 is Ganesh Rai. He is also a formal witness. He has proved the signature of Nagina Rai Ext. 3/2. P.W. 7 is Munishwar Pathak, informant of this case and P.W. 8 is Balram Pandey. He has supported the seizure list. 4. The defence has also examined five witnesses. D.W. 1 is Khelari Singh, D.W. 2 is Indradeo Singh, D.W. 3 is Prithvi Nath Dubey, D.W. 4 is Panchhi Rai and D.W. 5 is Krishna Singh. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the present case the procedure for trial was summary procedure and it was necessary that the same Special Judge who had recorded the entire evidence ought to have decided the case and the successor in office could not have decided the case on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. In this connection he has placed reliance on the case of Vyas Sah V/s. The State of Bihar 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 991. He pointed out that in the present case the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 was recorded by Special Judge, Ashok Kr. Sinha whereas the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and D.Ws. 1 to 5 was recorded by Special Judge, Chiranji Singh who delivered the judgment. 6. it is obvious that the rational behind the aforesaid view appears to be that under section 262, Cr. P.C. the procedure specified for the trial of summons case has to be followed in summary trials and section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence. Thus it is evident that in summary trial only substance of evidence has to be recorded which does not record the entire statement of the witnesses instead it only records the substance of the statement of the witness what he stated before the court. Thus it is evident that in summary trial only substance of evidence has to be recorded which does not record the entire statement of the witnesses instead it only records the substance of the statement of the witness what he stated before the court. Therefore, the Judge or the Magistrate who has recorded such substance of evidence is in position to appreciate the evidence led before him and the successor Judge or Magistrate cannot appreciate the evidence on the basis of evidence recorded by his predecessor. Therefore, it appears why the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been made applicable to summary trials. 7. In the present case the evidence was recorded by different Presiding Officer and finally the judgment was delivered by the Special Judge on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The Special Judge, who delivered the judgment had not himself recorded the evidence of the witnesses. As such he could not have proceeded from the stage where his predecessor had left the case and could not have used the evidence recorded by his predecessor. Therefore, the judgment and order is vitiated on account of said illegality and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is set aside, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. In the result, this appeal is allowed.