MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) for quashing of orders dated 10.2.2003 (Annexue P1) 20.10.2003 (Annexure P2) and 1.8.2005 (Annexure P3).
(2.) THE petitioners, who are employees of the Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), are facing trial under Sections 7 and 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 pursuant to F.I.R. No. 152 dated 11.8.2001 having been registered at police Station Mehta, District Amritsar. After due investigation, a challan under section 173 of the Cr. P.C. was presented before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baba Bakala, who took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 10.2.2003 (Annexure P1). Charge was framed against the petitioners vide order dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P2) for having committed the a foresaid offences as detailed in the F.I.R. The revision against the framing of charge ensued which was also dismissed by the Sessions judge, Amritsar vide order Annexure P.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to the notification issued by this Court vide Annexure P4, all the offences which were committed prior to 8.7.1998 were to be tried by the Special Courts constituted under the Act and subsequent to the cut off date of 8.7.1998, the offences were to be tried by the ordinary criminal Courts. A specific reference was made to sub-clause (ii) of Paragraph 7 of this petition wherein the details of the legislations, ordinances pertaining to the trial of such offences were given to say that only Special Courts constituted under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 could take cognizance of the offences since the sample was seized in the instant case 6.6.1996. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Pandurang and others v. State of Mharashtra, 1987(1) RCR(Criminal) 371 : 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1975. The factual and legal position has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State.
(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;