SATYA N DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2/7/1981 passed by the Ld. Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly in D.G.R. Case No. 78 of 1979 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of provisions of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order 1967. The facts are briefly as follows.

(2.) On 5.12.1979, the petitioner was arrested by police for alleged violation of Para2(a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order 1967 which is punishable under Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of the said charge-sheet, the Ld.. Magistrate took cognizance on 9.7.1980, On 6.2.1981, the petitioner moved a petition before the Ld. Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh praying for discharging him from the case on the ground that the case was triable under Summons case and since the charge sheet was not submitted in this case within a period of six months from the date of arrest, the continuation of the Investigation beyond the statutory period not having been extended by the Magistrate on a special prayer made by .the Investigating Police Officer being illegal the cognizance taken on the basis of the said charge-sheet is illegal and consequently there can be no trial of the accused on the basis of the said charge-sheet and he is liable to be discharged.

(3.) Before the Ld. Magistrate, the decision of this Court reported in 83 CEN 659 was cited. The Ld. Magistrate in his elaborate order repealed the submission made on behalf of the accused and having held that the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is a warrant case, observed that it was difficult to accept the idea that a warrant case like this case would become a Summons Case because it is summarily triable and simply because in holding summary trial procedure of summons case is to be followed. He has further observed that the case does not lose its original character as a warrant case and it remains a warrant case even though its trial is held summary and during its trial procedure of a summons case is followed.