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 three months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8.8.184 Bijay Kumar Sinha, Deputy Collector-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer, Sikrahana at Motihari raided the fair price shop of appellant, Kapildeo Sahni. It has been stated the consumers complained him at the time of raid that the appellant did not supply to them sugar though entry was made in the ration card. It was also complained that the appellant supplied kerosene oil in less quantity but double entry was made in the ration card. Thereafter the Addl. District Supply Officer got the list prepared which revealed that the appellant entered the supply of the articles in the ration card but actually no supply was made and no cash-memo was issued. In some cases quantity of supply was less than the quantity shown in the cash-memo. A written report was submitted by the Addl. District Supply Officer to the Officer Incharge, Chakiya on the basis of which a formal F.l.R. was drawn up. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether 16 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Pradeep Sahni, P.W. 2 is Mohit Sahni. P.W. 3 is Chulhai Sahni. P.W. 4 is Singesar Sahni. P.W. 5 is Ram Yoti Sahni. P.W. 6 is Hulash Sahni. P.W. 7 is Lagan Sahni. P.W. 8 is Sadhu Sahni. P.W. 9 is Punit Sahni. P.W. 10 is Chandra Sahni. P.W. 11 is Narsing Sahni. P.W. 12 is Faguni Sahni. P.W. 13 is Ramchandra Sahni. P.W. 14 is Bijay Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate. P.W. 15 is Jawahar Lal Sah. P.W. 16 is Kamod Prasad. Out of 16 witnesses, 11 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16 were declared hostile. 5. P.W. 14 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him the Addl. District Supply Officer raided the shop of the appellant under Ahiraulia Gram Panchayat alongwith Uma Nath Singh Supply Inspector. Out of 16 witnesses, 11 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16 were declared hostile. 5. P.W. 14 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him the Addl. District Supply Officer raided the shop of the appellant under Ahiraulia Gram Panchayat alongwith Uma Nath Singh Supply Inspector. According to him the consumers complained to him that the appellant supplied articles in less quantity and no cash memo was issued. They also complained that they did not get sugar. He has further stated that he checked the documents of the appellant and prepared the statements after comparing the documents from the statement of the consumers. He has also proved his signa- ture which has been marked as Ext. 1. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended 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 prodecessor. In this regard he has relied on a decision reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 991 (Vyas Sah vs. The State of Bihar). It is obvious that under section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 witness 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 a position to appreciate the evidence led before him and the successor Judge or Magistrate cannot appreciate the evidence only on the basis of evidence recorded by his prodecessor. As such it appears that 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. As such it appears that 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 case in hand the evidence was recorded by the Special Judge, Shri Laxuman Jee Jha and the judgment was delivered by another Special Judge Shri Damodar Prasad who has not himself recorded the evidence of the witnesses. As such he could not have proceeded from the stage where his predecessor has left the case and could not have recorded 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 conviction and sentence passed by the court below is set asidf The appellant is acquitted of the chargs Tamed against him. He is dischargee from the liability of the bail bond. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed.