Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant on being tried by Special Judge, Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 1054 of 1984, suffered conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. 2. The salient features of the prosecution case necessary for disposal of this appeal, can be stated with brevity. It is alleged that on 19th August, 1984 after Ram Ekbal Rai (P.W. 1) noticed four quintals of sugar being transported on five number of horses by the appellant, he intercepted them and informed the police, who eventually seized commodity in question, and on these accusations, fardbeyan of Rak Ekbal Rai was recorded at 6 A.M. on 20th August, 1984 by Shri P.N.Yadav, A.S.I. of Police at the police station, pursuant to which, investigation commenced. In usual course of investigation the police officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether eight witnesses and one K.Thakur, it appears was examined as a court witness. Others examined by the State, were witnesses who stated about seizure of sugar, allegedly from possession of the appellant, while being carried to Turkey for disposal in black-market for pecuniary gain. 3. The defence of the appellant before the court below and also this court had been that of innocence, and the trial court on evaluation of testimony of witnesses, rejecting the defence of the appellant, rendered verdict of guilt finding appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him, in the manner stated above. A brief resume of the evidence of witnesses placed on the record can be narrated with brevity, though these have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the court below. Sri K.Thakur, who appears to have been examined as a court witness, would state about service of summon on the appellant. Ram Ekbal Rai, P.W. 1, was the maker of fardbeyan and he would reiterate his assertion spelt out in the fardbeyan about he having intercepted appellant when four quintals of sugar, from the fair price shop, of which the appellant was dealer, was being carried on five number of horses for disposal in black-market in Turkey Bazar. Ram Ekbal Rai, P.W. 1, was the maker of fardbeyan and he would reiterate his assertion spelt out in the fardbeyan about he having intercepted appellant when four quintals of sugar, from the fair price shop, of which the appellant was dealer, was being carried on five number of horses for disposal in black-market in Turkey Bazar. Awadhesh Kumar, P.W.2, stated about seizure of four quintals of sugar by the police officer on 20th August, 1984. Ramashish Rai, P.W. 3, would state about transportation of sugar on five horses by the appellant for disposal in blackmarket in Turkey Bazar. It was stated by the witness that appellant had not been distributed essential commodities to the consumers from the fair price shop. Assertion made by this witness was challenged by the defence, that being not in conformity with the statement rendered before the police. Bhim Rai, P.W. 4, and L.B.Rai, P.W. 8, were tendered by the State and there is nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Ram Lagan Rai, P.W. 5 and Ajablal Rai, P.W. 6, turned volte face to the State demonstrating their ignorance about seizure of sugar in their presence. Raghunath Rai, P.W. 7, however, would state about appellant transporting four quintals of sugar on five horses from his fair price shop. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 4. Contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellant to criticise the finding recorded by the court below was that the finding recorded by trial court was not sustainable in law for the reason that this being a summary proceeding, the trial Judge, who rendered verdict of guilt, had not recorded evidence of the witnesses and, hence, he was not competent to evaluate them and render a finding thereon. It has been brought to my notice that the Special Judges, who recorded statement of witnesses was Awadhesh Prasad Sinha while the Judge who recorded the finding of guilty was Sri Kamla Prasad. Reiterating the submission it is urged that Kamla Prasad, Special Judge, had not recorded statement of witnesses either in entirety or in part, was not competent to evaluate them and to render finding of guilt against the appellant. Reiterating the submission it is urged that Kamla Prasad, Special Judge, had not recorded statement of witnesses either in entirety or in part, was not competent to evaluate them and to render finding of guilt against the appellant. Though, the provisions enjoined in sub-section 1 of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Judge/Magistrate to record finding, on the strength of the evidence of the witnesses recorded by the predecessor, the said provision was not applicable in case of summary proceeding, unless the witnesses were re-summoned and their statements were recorded by the Judge/Magistrate. The legal position has been well- crystalised in catena of decisions of this court and it has been held that in backdrop of such situation, the entire trial is rendered void ah initio. Though, it is urged at bar that even persons who were transporting the sugar on the horses has not been examined at trial and also that the attention of P.W. 3 had been drawn by the defence to impeach his credibility and even investigating officer was not examined at trial, since finding recorded by trial Judge has suffered serious infirmity for want of jurisdiction vested in him, it is not necessary to delve upon other contentions raised, at bar. 5. In the result, while finding recorded by the court below against the appellant, is set-aside, he is acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liability of bail-bonds. The appeal, accordingly, succeeds.