Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.05.2016 passed by Ld. A.C.J.M-IX, Siwan in Criminal Complaint Case No. 536 of 2016, whereby Ld. Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 264, 265, 266, 418, 420 and 379/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the General Manager, and Cane Manager of Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited, Gopalganj besides ones Ramashray Singh and Hare Ram Singh and had directed issuance of summons against them.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the Criminal Complaint bearing No. 536 of 2016, filed by the Complainant, Santosh Singh is that he is a cane grower and sells sugarcanes to the sugar mill. It has been alleged that the representative of the Vishnu Sugar Mill Ltd. situated at Gopalganj came to the Complainant stating that the said sugar mill had opened a purchase centre in the village, Chaumukha, Siwan and requested him to sell sugarcanes at the said purchase centre, where there is no irregularity in weight and measure. On the basis of the representation, the Complainant started bringing his sugarcanes since 11.01.2016 to the said Chaumukha Cane Centre. When the Complainant doubted the correctness of the weight of the sugarcanes at the said purchase centre, on 23.01.2016, he got his sugarcanes weighed at another weight centre i.e Bajrang Dharamkata, located at Rasulpur, District- Saran, wherein the weight of one trailer of sugarcanes was found to be 64 quintal and 32 kg, whereas weight of another trailer was found to be 63 quintal and 60 kg, after which the Complainant got the same weighed at the Chaumukha Purchase Centre, where the weight shown was 55 quintal and 58 kg and 56 quintal 18 kg respectively. When the Complainat showed the discrepancy to the Accused No.3, Ramashray Singh and the Accused No.4, Hare Ram Singh, they claimed that the weight was correct. Accordingly, again on 26.01.2016 the Complainant got the sugarcanes weighed at the said Bajrang Dharamkata, where the weight was shown to be 57 quintal 30 kg, whereas, at the purchase centre, it was shown to be 49 quintal 97 kg. Discrepancy in the weight was again found on 29.01.2016. The weight at Bajrang Dharamkata was shown to be 62 quintal and 30 kg and 58 quintal and 40 kg of two trailers, whereas, the weight at the Chaumukha Purchase Centre was shown to be 54 quintal 70 kg and 50 quintal and 93 kg respectively.

3. Subsequently, the Complainant informed the discrepancy to the District Collector on 04.02.2016, after which inspection order was passed and on 05.02.2016 the Complainant weighed the sugarcanes again at the Bajrang Dharamkata, where it shows the weight as 61 quintal and 80 kg, whereas the weight of the sugarcanes at Chaumukha Purchase Centre in the presence of the Block Development Officer, Pachrukhi was found to be 53 quintal and 80 kg. Thereafter, the purchase centre was sealed.

4. Hence, the Complainant has claimed that the accused persons have kept defective weight measures at Chaumukha Purchase Centre and cheated the Complainant by weighing 8 quintal less than the actual one and have misappropriated the property of the Complainant. It has also been alleged that even the sale price of the sugarcane has also not been paid to the Complainant. The Complainant approached the local police and the District Magistrate, but no action was taken. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

5. Prior to the cognizance, the Complainant and two other witnesses were examined during enquiry under Section 200 Cr.PC. They have supported the allegation as made in the complaint.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 is special enactment dealing with purchase of sugarcane and in the Act, there is provisions regarding proper maintenance of purchase centres and measures of weight at the purchase centres and there