JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.—Special leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave two questions arise for our consideration, namely, (i) whether a Special Court constituted under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) is empowered to exercise powers under sub-section (5) of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for short) in relation to an accused person forwarded to it under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 12-AA of the Act? and (ii) whether a Special Court can, notwithstanding the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused person or the extended period, take cognizance of the offence and proceed to try and punish the accused person? These two questions arise in the backdrop of the following facts.

3. A police party headed by an Inspector of Police raided the business premises and godown of the respondents on March 16, 1984 and in the presence of respondent Falguni Dutta seized certain essential commodities stored in contravention of certain orders issued under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Act. The accused Falguni Dutta was arrested on the same day for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act but the charge-sheet was submitted after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of arrest on September 30, 1986. The learned Judge presiding over the Special Court constituted under Section 12-A of the Act took cognizance of the offence on March 13, 1987 on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 of the Code. Thereupon the accused persons moved an application before the learned Special Judge for quashing the proceedings on the ground that since the case was triable as a summons-case in view of Section 12-AA(1)(f) of the Act, clause (5) of Section 167 of the Code was attracted which enjoined that the proceedings be dropped. The learned Special Judge relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Kanta Dey v. State of W.B, 1986 Cal CrLR 158, rejected the application on July 24, 1987 holding that the provision of Section 167(5) of the Code had no application to a case initiated for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. We may incidentally point out that the same view was expressed in Babulal Agarwal v. State{(1987) 1 CHN 218}. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application the accused preferred a revision application to the High Court challenging the legality of the said order. A learned Single Judge of the High Court placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad v. Anjaneyulu{1986 Cri LJ 1456, held that sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code stood attracted and the learned Special Judge ought to have stopped the further investigation on the expiry of six months and ought to have discharged the accused. He, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Special Judge and also quashed the prosecution and discharged the accused. It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal is preferred.

4. We may incidentally mention that when the learned Single Judge was disinclined to follow the earlier two decisions of other learned Single Judges of the High Court the proper course was to refer the matter to a Division Bench for decision. That, however, has now lost significance in view of the subsequent decision of the Division Bench in Jnan Prakash Agarwal v. State of W.B.{(1992) 1 CHN 213} taking a contrary view. In the said case the Division Bench has taken the view which the learned Single Judge has taken in the present case. We will deal with these decisions in some detail hereafter.

5. At the outset we deem it appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the concerned statutes. The Act was enacted to provide, in the interest of the general