SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Raj) 165

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.L.MEHTA
RAM PRASAD SHARMA AND SONS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRI. R. P. 206 Of 1984
Decided On : 08/09/1984

Advocates Appeared:
M.I.KHAN, N.L.Tibrewal

Section 12AA(1)(e) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 overrides the provisions of Section 11 for a temporary period of five years, as provided by the Amending Act 18 of 1981, and empowers Special Courts to take cognizance of offences without a complaint.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 11 - SECTION 12AA - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES - SPECIAL COURTS - INTERPRETATION - OVERRIDING EFFECT:

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed before a Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (as amended by Act 18 of 1981), by the Supply Officer. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court to take cognizance of the complaint, arguing that Section 11 of the Act, which requires a report from a public servant for cognizance, was not overridden by the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(e), which empowers Special Courts to take cognizance of offences without a complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 12AA(1)(e) overrides the provisions of Section 11 for a temporary period of five years, as provided by the Amending Act 18 of 1981. The Court found that the intention of the Legislature was to provide a special mechanism for dealing with offences under the Act during this period, including the creation of Special Courts with enhanced powers and the suspension of certain provisions, such as Section 11, to ensure expeditious disposal of cases and curb black-marketing and profiteering.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 12AA(1)(e) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 overrides the provisions of Section 11, which requires a report from a public servant for cognizance of offences. 2. Whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the Supply Officer without a report under Section 11.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 12AA(1)(e) as having an overriding effect on Section 11, based on the non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" and the specific provision in Section 12AA(1)(e) empowering Special Courts to take cognizance of offences without a complaint. 2. The Court considered the object of the Amending Act 18 of 1981, which was to provide special measures for dealing with black-marketing and profiteering, and the need for expeditious disposal of cases. 3. The Court noted that the provisions of Section 12AA(1)(e) are mandatory in nature and provide a different mode of taking cognizance of offences, which overrides the general provisions of Section 11.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower court, and directed that the complaint/report filed by the Supply Officer be returned to him for lodging an FIR at the police station. The police agency was directed to investigate the matter and take necessary steps according to law.

Judgment


D. L. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE Supply Officer, Dholpur lodged a complaint on 21st Feb 1983, under S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said complaint was lodged before the Special Court constituted under the amended Act No. 18 of 1981, by which Special Courts were constituted. The petitioner preferred an application before the Special Court on 28th Feb. , 1983 and submitted that the Special Court is not competent to take cognizance especially in the light of the provisions of S. 12aa (1) (e ). Sub-sec (e) reads as under :-" (E) a Special Court, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial;"1a. The contention of the petitioner before the Court below was that no complaint can be entertained as provided under Sec. 11 after the amended Act No. 18 of 1981. The learned Addl. Session Judge (Special Court), Dholpur, vide his order dated 22nd June, 1984, held that he is competent to take cognizance under S. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act and S. 12-AA (1) (e), as amended by Act No. 18 of 1981, will not take away the jurisdiction vested in the Court under S. 11 of the Act.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner S/shri N. L. Tibrewal and R. S. Rathor and the learned Public Prosecutors S/shri M. I. Khan and G. C. Chatterjee.

( 3 ) THE question involved in the instant case is only a question of law and so, it was agreed upon between the parties that this case should be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, I would like to reproduce Ss. 11 and 12aa as under :-"11. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Sec. 21 of the I. P. C. (45 of 1860 ). ""12aa. Offences triable by Special Courts. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code :- (a) all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court ; (b) where a person is accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under Sub-s. (2) or Sub-sec (2-A) of S. 167 of the Code, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate; provided that where such Magistrate considers - (i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or (ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him ; that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he may, if he is satisfied that the case falls under the proviso to S. 8, order the release of such person on bail and if he is not so satisfied, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction ; (c) the Special Court may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) of this sub-section, exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under Cl. (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under S. 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section ; (d) save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Special Court or the High Court; provided that a Special Court shall not release any such person on bail - (i) without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application for such release unless the Special Court, for reasons to be recorde















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top