GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 8. 1993 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur framing charges under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477-A IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) MR. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that the petitioners had been tried by the Special Judge for the false entries recorded in the registers, and convicted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act vide judgment dated 28. 9. 89, contended that they cannot be tried under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 477-A IPC again on the same allegations because of the provisions of Sec. 26 of the General Clauses Act and hence the charges are liable to be quashed. Mr. Kalla, Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the allegations in the earlier case were with regard to the contravention of the provisions of the Control Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act and the all-egations in the present case are that the petitioners had cheated the consumers as also their employer, and therefore, there is no legal impediment in the trial of the petitioners. A narration of facts would help us in resolving the controversy. Ajad Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Dhanjatiya, was dealer of levy sugar. It was the duty of the society to distribute the levy sugar to the ration-card holders every month as per the direction given by the District Supply Officer. On receiving some complaints, the DSO directed Harbhajan Singh, Enforcement Inspector, to inspect the establishment of Ajad Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti. Shri Harbans Singh inspected the record of the Society on 9. 8. 85. He found that the levy sugar allotted to the society was not distributed to the consumers and there was embezzlement of sugar. He noticed that the stock and distribution registers were not properly maintained. He, therefore, lodged a report at Police Station Keshrisinghpur on 1. 5. 85, whereupon a case under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. The police, after completion of the investigation, filed chargesheet No. 74 against the petition-ers under Sec. 3/7 of the E. C. Act stating that a separate chargesheet No. 74-A was being submitted for offences under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477-A IPC. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioners under Sec. 7 & 9 read with Sec. 3 of the E. C. Act on chargesheet No. 74. The petitioners pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses. The learned Special Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence, convicted both the petitioners under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 3 of the E. C. Act vide judgment dated 28. 9. 89. The appeal preferred against the judgment is pending in this Court and is registered at No. 372/89. Therefore, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate took up the case based on chargesheet No. 74-A. After hearing the parties, he passed the impugned order on 23. 8. 93. The point that arises for determination is whether Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 bars the prosecution of the petitioners for offences under Sections 477-A, 467, 471, 474 and 420 IPC because of their earlier trial for offences under the E. C. Act. Sec. 26 of the General Clauses Act reads as follows:- " 26. Provisions to offences punishable under two or more enactments.-Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. "
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the earlier case the petitioners were neither tried nor prosecuted for the offences under the IPC. The serious question to be considered is whether the petitioners could be tried or will be deemed to have been tried for the offences of the Indian Penal Code in the earlier case filed before the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sri Ganganagar. Under Sec. 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, the offences under the Act are triable only by the Special Court situated for the area in which the offence is committed. Clause (f) of Sub Section (1) of Sec. 12-AA provides that the offences under the E. C. Act shall be tried in a summary way and that the provisions of Sec. 262 and 265 of the Code shall apply to such trial. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 12-AA reads as follows. " (2) When trying an offence under Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act, with which the accu-sed may, under the Code, be charged at the same trial. Provided that such other offence is, under any other law for the time being in force, triable in a summary way. Provided further that in the case of any conviction for such offence in such trial, it shall not be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding the term provided for conviction in a summary trial under such other law. " A reading of sub-Sec. (2) makes it clear that only such offences can be tried by Special Court alongwith offences of E. C. Act, which are triable in a summary way. The offences under Secs. 477-A, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 420 IPC are certainly not triable summarily. It is, therefore, obvious that those offences could not be tried by the Special Judge alongwith the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, and they can be deemed to have been tried by the Special Judge. ;