(1.) This is an application to quash the cognisance taken by the learned Special Judge, Cuttack, of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) From the order dated 17-9-1984 passed by the learned Special Judge, it appears that cognisance was taken on the basis of a report submitted by the Inspector of Supplies. Mr. Mohapatra appearing for the petitioners contends that in view of the provisions contained in the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 18 of 1981, a Special Judge was not competent to take cognisance on the basis of a report or complaint from the Inspector of Supplier, since according to him, a Special Court can toke cognisance upon a perusal of police report constituting the offence. In support of his aforesaid contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Calcutta Hicih. Court in the case of In Re: Satish Chandra De1. The learned Additional Standinci Counsel on the other hand, submits that the provisions contained in section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act is not obliterated and, therefore, it would be well within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to take cognizance in accordance with the said provision.
(3.) Act 18 of 1981 was intended to deal more effectively with persons indulging in hearing, black- marketing and profiteering in essential commodities. This is a special statute which brought into existence some special courts to deal with the offences covered under the Essential Commodities? Act. Section 12AA provides that a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under the Act, take cognisance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial and clause (f) provides that the offence shall be tried in a summary way. This being a special provision intended for special offences enumerated therein, the Special Judge can act only in accordance with the procedure contained therein. There is no manner of doubt that after coming into force of the special statute (Act 18 of 1981), the offences covered under the Act can be tried only by the Special Court constituted for the area and necessarily, therefore, such Special Courts must follow the procedure contained in the amended provision. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel that section 11 of the parent Act authorises the Special Court to toke cognisance even if the basis of cognisance is not a police report as contemplated in Clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 12AA. Agreeing with the view expressed by their lordships of the Calcutta High Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to toke cognisance on the basis of the report/complaint submitted by the. Inspector of Supplies, since the report of the Inspector of Supplies cannot be equated with a police report as contemplated in section 12AA(1)(e) of the Act. Necessarily, therefore, the order of the Special Judge taking cognisance of the offence must be quashed and is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the quashing of the cognisance taken, it would be open for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Criminal Miscellaneous case is accordingly allowed. Case allowed.