- (1.) PALOK Basu, J.- Admittedly the accused applicant is facing trial under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been moved on the ground that Section 468, Cr. P. C. will be attracted to the facts of the case and, therefore, the trial will be barred by limitation.
(2.) SRI R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of the court to Section 12-A A which was brought into statute book by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. Section 11 of the said Act carves out Sections 12-A and 12-AA in the parent Act i. e. Essential Commodities Act. For ready reference relevant portion of Section 12-AA may be quoted. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) 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; (f) all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the code shall, as far as may be apply to such trial : Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. It was argued that the proviso to clause (f) makes it incumbent that the special court cannot award sentence of imprisonment exceeding two years. The argument was elaborated by saying that since the special Judge cannot impose a sentence of more than two years RI, Section 468, Cr. P. C. in terms will be attracted. Sri Surendra Singh learned A. G. A. for the state has, however, argued that Section 468, Cr. P. C. has no relevance. The special court is empowered to impose a lesser penalty |than the parent section which imposes main penalty. He relied upon Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which says that if any person contravenes any orders made under Section 3 he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years R. I.
(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of this case the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived. The charge sheet was admittedly received on 28-8-1988. The date of the incident alleged in the instant case is 27-4-1984 when the District Supply Officer lodged a First INfor mation report at police station Kotwali Chandausi against the applicant for taking action against him under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegation was that the applicant had no licence to possess khand-sari. The basis of the said allegation was that 120 quintals of khandsari had been kept by the applicant in the Central Warehousing Corporation Chandausi. It was, thus, inferred in the FIR that various clauses of the Sugar & Gur Dealer's Licensing Order, 1962 were contravened. On the facts and circumstances, therefore, this case will be covered by the clause 2 of Section 7 of the E. C. Act as the allegations are that the appli cant was having more stock then he could possess individually as required under the law,;