Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:809 Court No. - 18 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5618 of 2012 Applicant :- Chotelal Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi,Sanju Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicant has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Faizabad, whereby the Special Court has rejected the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., exonerating the applicant, and proceeded to summon him for facing trial under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, arising out of Case Crime No. 789 of 2008 registered at Police Station Bikapur, District Faizabad. As per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., Mr. Sachidanand Vishwakarma, Lekhpal Khurjhat at 3:00 p.m. telephonically informed Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur that Chotelal- applicant is illegally selling the food-grains belonging to the category of quota, and acting upon this information, they visited the alleged place where Chotelal was not found and his godown was locked. As per the prosecution, outside the godown, a tractor trolley bearing registration no. U.P. 42 F 1482 containing 29 bags of rice with a mark of Food Corporation of India was found, and the said material was meant for public distribution. After opening the lock of the godown, 145 bags of wheat (77 quintals), 69 bags of rice (41.10 quintals) were found with the mark of Food Corporation of India. Apart from this, some other loose grains of wheat, rice, lentils, mustered, Kalsi, Khali and Mahua alongwith weighing articles were also found. After effecting the recovery, the godown was sealed and the material contained in the tractor trolley was also taken in possession. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. After completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Special Court, Faizabad, whereby the accused-applicant was declared innocent. But, disagreeing with the conclusion by the Investigating Officer, the complainant preferred a protest petition and considering the same, the Special Court, Faizabad vide order dated 27.7.2012 proceeded to reject the final report and took cognizance of offences, and also summoned the accused-applicant. Hence, this application. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is triable by Magistrate, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Special Court, Faizabad (Sessions Court) in the absence of compliance of Section 193 Cr.P.C. is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. exonerating the applicant was wrongly filed before the Court of Sessions, as the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, designating Sessions Court as a Special Court for such trials was applicable upto 8.7.1998, and since the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was not in-force at the time of filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Court is not sustainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the decision of this Court delivered in Smt. Shakila Vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Application U/S 482 No. 44486 of 2012. He prays that the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 be set aside. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer has not disputed this fact that the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby the accused-applicant was declared innocent, was indeed filed before the Special Court, Faizabad (Sessions Court) and considering the said report as well as the protest petition, the Special Court, Faizabad had passed the impugned order dated 27.7.2012. During the course of hearing, learned A.G.A. has not disputed the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Shakila (Supra). Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the question relating to the procedure for trial in respect of an office under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 i.e. either before the court of Magistrate or Sessions Court has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Smt. Shakila (Supra). While examining the statutory provisions as well as the subsequent amendments, this Court made the following observations :- "The question that falls for determination in this case is whether special court which ceased to be Special Court under the provisions of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 still has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence or to remand the accused to the custody who is implicated for the offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Principal Act") provides for regulation of production, supply and pricing of essential commodities. This Act had been amended from time to time. In spite of extensive amendments made to the Principal Act, some of the existing provisions of that Act have not been adequate and effective for expeditious disposal of the cases as well as ensuring availability of the essential commodities at fair prices and for curbing hoarding and black- marketing of and profiteering in, such commodities. Moreso, there were large number of court cases pending under the Principal Act all over the country. For dealing more effectively with persons indulging in anti-social activities, it was considered necessary to make special provisions by way of amendments to the Principal Act for temporary period of 5 years and viewed with this perception, special provisions were brought by way of amendment to the Principle Act. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Provisions') consequently came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 in all the States and Union Territories. This special provision was enforced initially for a period of 5 years and was extended for further period of 5 years i.e. 1987 to 1992 and thereafter from 1992 to 1997. The Special provisions were enforced till 13.8.1997. Thereafter the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1997 (Central Ordinance 21 of 1997) was promulgated. As there was no enactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance 1998 (Central Amendment Ordinance 13 of 1998) was promulgated by the President. The above Ordinances lapsed since they were not replaced by enactments, as a result of which, Special Courts established under Section 12-A for trial of Essential Commodities Act cases ceased to function. Consequentially position that followed was that cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act were to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was being done prior to the enactment of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. In view of above, Special Provisions remained in force till 8.7.1998. In pursuance of the notification of State Government, dated 3.10.1998 High Court issued circular dated 30.3.1999 which is quoted below: "Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1998 have become ineffective from 31.3.1997 and 8.7.1998 C.L. No.5/Admin.A 3 dated: 30 March,1999 I am directed to refer the letter no. Bha.Sa.64/29.7.1998- 102/98, dated 3.10.1998 of Sri Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi, Secretary Government of U.P. Addressed to all the District Magistrate of the State (copy enclosed), on the above subject, and to say that on consideration of the matter court has been pleased to order that being the provision of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, read with Essential Commodities Ordinance 1998 ineffective by virtue of non-extension of power the Section 6 (e) of U.P.General Clause Act, 1904 provides that the cases in which cognizance have been taken shall continue to be tried by the Special Judge. I am further directed to say that so far as new cases, which have arisen out of essential commodities Act, 1955 after 8.7.1998, cognizance shall be taken as per the provision of said act by Magistrate having jurisdiction of the cases". On a fair reading of circular issued by this Court, it is borne out that the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act and Ordinance 1998 became ineffective by virtue of non-extension of power. The cases in which the cognizance has already been taken by the Special Judge shall continue to be tried by the Special Judge in view of Section 6 (e) of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. It was clarified that in the cases which have arisen from Essential Commodities Act, 1955 after 8.7.1998, cognizance shall be taken as per the provisions of said Act by the Magistrate having jurisdiction of the cases. Resultantly, the above Act and Ordinance lapsed, since they were not replaced by the enactments as a result Special courts established for the trial of the cases of essential commodities ceased to function. Consequently, the position is that cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act are now to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was being done prior to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. It is not disputed that prior to the enforcement of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the cases under the Essential Commodities Act were being tried by the Area Magistrate within their respective territorial jurisdictions. It is discernible from the above facts that during the period Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act was in force, special courts constituted for trial of offence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act had exclusive jurisdiction to try such cases. Special courts had also power to pass order or remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and take cognizance of offence but the position has now changed after Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, lapsed by efflux of time. Thereafter the position that used to prevail before the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, stood restored and Judicial Magistrates who were previously competent to try the essential commodities cases got the jurisdiction to deal with such cases. Since Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 had lapsed, the power of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under the cases of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 stood restored. However, due to non-extension of power, by virtue of Section 6 (e) of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 the cases in which cognizance have already been taken before the special provisions became ineffective, shall continue to be tried by the Special Judge concerned." A reading of the above, makes it abundantly clear that by virtue of inapplicability of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the jurisdiction for such trials has reverted back to the Magistrate. Concededly, the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was not submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 is not sustainable, for lack of compliance of Section 193 Cr.P.C. Consequently, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 is set aside, and it is directed that the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. alongwith the protest petition be placed before the court of competent jurisdiction for its consideration on merits. It is further clarified that the merits of the case be examined independently, without influenced by the observations contained in the impugned order dated 27.7.2012. The application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 P.S. Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench