G MOUNAGURUSWAMY Vs. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER INPUTS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KRISHNAMPALAYAM ROAD ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question of law that arises in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions is, whether the Special Court, constituted under the Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, can take cognizance of an offence under the said Act on a report made by a public servant other than a police official by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act.

(2.) In Crl.M.P.No.4858 of 1983 the respondent therein-the Agricultural Officer (Inputs), Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Erode has launched this criminal prosecution against the petitioner therein in the Special Court for Essential Commodities, Coimbatore violation of Clause (10), 13(b)(ii) and 21(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act in S.T.C.No.6 of 1983. In Cr.M.P.No.7677 of 1984 the respondent therein-the Special Tahsildar, Sugarcane Procurement, Udumalpet Taluk, has filed this Criminal prosecutionagainst the petitioner therein in the Special Court for Essential Commodities, Coimbatore, for violation of the direction issued under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1976, punishable under Section 7(i) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in S.T.C.No.22 of 1984. It is to quash these proceedings the accused have come forward with these petitions.

(3.) Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Act introduced by the Amendment Act (18 of 1981.) lays down that �A Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial�. On the basis of this Clause, it is contended by the learned Counsel for he petitioner-accused that the amendment introduced by the Amendment Act (18 of 1981) is a self-contained Code in itself and the Special Court can take cognizance of offences under the Act only on the report filed by the police and not by any other public servant. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Satish Chandra De, In re, (1984) Crl.L.J. 1532 where it has been held that so long as the Amending Act (18 of 1981), which is of a temporary character, operates in the field, Section 11of the Act which enables any public servant to file a complaint for an offence under this Act cannot be taken recourse to, to prosecute a person accused of an offence under the Act.