1985 (7) TMI 381 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector.
2. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. Effect of the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, 1981 on Section 11 of the Principal Act.
4. Applicability of Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Amending Act.
5. Judicial precedents related to the interpretation of Section 12-AA(1)(e) and Section 11.

Analysis:

1. Competence of the Special Judge to Take Cognizance:
The petitioners, accused in S.T.6 of 1985, sought to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance of the offence based on a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector. The court analyzed whether the Special Judge could proceed with the case under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979, read with Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a report in writing by a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the I.P.C. The court noted that this provision was intended as a safeguard against harassment by interested persons, such as rival businessmen filing false complaints.

3. Effect of the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, 1981:
The Amending Act of 1981 introduced several changes, including the establishment of Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction and the amendment of Section 12-AA(1)(e), which allows Special Courts to take cognizance of offences on a police report without the accused being committed for trial. The petitioners argued that this provision impliedly repealed Section 11 of the Principal Act during the temporary period of the Amending Act.

4. Applicability of Section 12-AA(1)(e):
The court examined whether Section 12-AA(1)(e) barred cognizance by any method other than a police report. The court concluded that Section 11 and Section 12-AA(1)(e) were not mutually exclusive or conflicting. Section 12-AA(1)(e) clarified that Special Courts could take cognizance on a police report without committal, but did not exclude other methods of taking cognizance provided in Section 11.

5. Judicial Precedents:
The petitioners cited decisions from the Calcutta High Court (In Re: Satish Chandra De, 1984 Cri LJ 1532) and the Rajasthan High Court (Ram Prasad Sharma & Sons v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cri LJ 442), which held that cognizance could only be taken on a police report during the subsistence of the Amending Act. However, the court found these decisions unpersuasive and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which emphasized that multiple methods of taking cognizance are permissible under criminal jurisprudence.

The court also referred to Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court (Nawal Kishore v. State of Bihar, 1985 Cri LJ 254 and Manu Lal Sah v. State of Bihar, 1985 Cri LJ 260), which supported the view that Special Courts could take cognizance on a complaint by a public servant under Section 11.

Conclusion:
The court held that Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was not impliedly repealed by Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Amending Act. The Special Judge was competent to take cognizance based on a complaint filed by a public servant, including the Drugs Inspector. The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed, affirming that the Special Judge could proceed with the case as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Amending Act.

← Previous Next →