R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) ). This Revision Application has been ordered to be placed before the Full Bench in view of the fact that the learned single Judge, who was hearing the application could not agree with the ratio of an earlier decision of a single Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 1989 (P. D. Agarwal v. State of Gujarat and Anr.), decided on l lth October, 1990, in which, dealing with a similar case of contravention of Clause 13 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), the learned single Judge had taken a view that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because such contravention was punishable under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act for short), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine. Since, in the present case also, the complaint was in respect of the contravention of the provisions of Clause 13 of the said Order, the learned single Judge having noticed that such a case did not fall under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (i) of the said Act, which applied to an Order made with reference to the provisions of Clauses (h) or (i) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 thereof, and that the alleged contravention of Clause 13 of the Order was punishable under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (ii) of the Act, with imprisonment for a term of not less than three months, but may extend to seven years, had ordered the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who are the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were facing trial before the Special Court, Surendranagar for an offence under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (ii) of the Act read with Clause 13 of the Control Order. In those proceedings they made an application Exh. 39 praying for rejection of the complaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation under the provisions of Sec. 468 of the Code since the complaint was filed two years after the date of the incident for an offence, which was punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year for which the period of limitation provided was one year under Sec. 468 (2) (b) of the Code. According to the petitioners, the offence alleged against them fell within Sec. 7 (l) (a) (i) of the said Act, which refers to Clauses (h) and (i) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge constituting the Special Court, by his order dated 30-11-1989, rejected the said application holding that the contravention which was alleged was not of the category which fell under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (i), read with Sec. 3 (2) (h) and (i) of the Act, but it would fall under Sec. 7 (l) (a) (ii) thereof.

( 3 ) THE relevant provisions which are required to be kept in mind from the said Act, the Act of 1981, and the Order as well as the Code are as under :-"the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. , of essential commodities :- (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, (or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations), it may, by Order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1), an Order made thereunder may provide - (a) xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx (h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters; (i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document