R.N.Sahay, J.

1. The Special Judge, Madhubani bv his order dated 7.5.1993 in G.R. No. 2380/91 (Tr. No. 158/93) has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act against these three petitioners which is sought to be quashed by this application.

2. On 22.11.1991 one Ram Bhajan Das (opposite partv No. 2) of village Manmohan PS. Basopatti in the district of Madhubani submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge Basopatti Police Station alleging that petitioner No. 1 who was appointed as a dealer under the Public Distribution System, was not regular in distributing Kerosene Oil and Sugar to the consumers.

It is further alleged that he was supplying these items in less quantity. It is further alleged that he was also charging excess price. It was next alleged that on the same day i.e. on 22.11.1991 one Ajab Lal Yadav came to the complainant and said that a drum of Kerosene Oil was kept in the bathan of one Md. Sabjan. The complainant along with several other person went to that bathan and found a drum of Kerosene Oil. On inquiry,Md. Sabjan said that the drum of Kerosene Oil belonged to petitioner No. 1. On information, Police reached there. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 confessed that Kerosene Oil belonged to him. The petitioners are alleged to have tried to take away the Kerosene Oil on the point of revolver.

3. On the basis of these allegations mentioned in the written report, a case under Section 7, E.C. Act and Sections 341, 386, 379, IPC was instituted against the petitioners and one other. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the police and after investigation police found that the allegation levelled against the petitioners, for which a case under Section 7, E.C. Act was filed, was false one, and as such, final report was submitted on 10.5.1992.

4. The learned Special Judge, Madhubani inspite of submission of final report, took cognizance under Sections 7 and 8 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner and other accused on the basis of protest petition of the complainant as well as on the basis of materials contained in the case diary and issued summons against them.

5. The petitioner No. 1 was a dealer under Public Distribution System. According to the petitioners, there was no irregularity in the distribution of Sugar and Kerosene Oil as well as wheat and rice as the same was also verified by the Supply Officer, Mukhiya, Prakhand Vikash Padadhikari and the members of Vigilance Committee. The aforesaid facts would be borne from the supervision note of SDPO, Jai Nagar, who after inspection of the register as well as other records found no irregularity in the distribution and found the case to be a mistake of fact. The S.P., Madhubani after examining the facts collected also found the case to be mistake of fact. Petitioners No. 2 and No. 3 had no connection with petitioner No. 1 and due to enmity they have been falsely made accused in this case.

6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 11 of the E.C. Act on the basis of a report submitted by a private person. There is no report of a public servant in this case. He further argued that the learned Special Judge passed the impugned order on the protest petition of the complainant and this cannot be said to be a report of a Government Servant, and as such the impugned order is invalid.

7. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a settled law that under the E.C. Act also the case can be instituted on the basis of the report submitted by the police or by any private person. It is settled by the decisions of this Court that the Court has power to differ with the final report and take cognizance by a reasoned order. He further submitted that the learned Special Judge after looking into the protest petition, case diary and the materials collected during the investigation was satisfie