Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act and the impact of the expiration of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act on the court's jurisdiction.

By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2003. passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.2 of 1999. whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.

3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. A seizure of large quantity of rice was made on 25.2.1999. by the Supply Inspector, Chakradharpur, in the presence of S.D.O. Porahat at Chakradharpur, from the premises of one Md. Arif. Said Md. Arif informed that the rice was stored by the petitioner Raju Agaiwal. Alleging that the petitioner was not having the license for dealing in the food grains and was storing the rice beyond the storage limit, the police case was instituted on the basis of the written information given by Supply Inspector, Chakradharpur, on 27.2.1999, being Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 25 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 2 of 1999, for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and investigation was taken up.

4. It appears that after investigation of, the case charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Pursuant thereto, by order dated 19.7.1999 passed in G.R. No.2 of 1999 the Special Judge E.C. Act. Chaibasa took cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner. The order taking cognizance has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to this application.

5. The petitioner had challenged the said order taking cognizance in Patna High Court. Ranchi Bench, in Cr. Misc. No. 5975 of 1999 (R) which was however permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 17.12.1999, giving the petitioner the liberty to raise his point at the appropriate time in view of the ground taken by the petitioner that no case was made out against him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his application for discharge. which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.. Porahat at Chaibasa, which has been challenged in this application. It may be pointed out that a separate confiscation proceeding was initiated with respect to the seized rice in this case, which was dropped by order dated 4.3.2000 passed by the Collector, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Confiscation Case No. 8 of 98-99.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point challenging the impugned order and has submitted that on the date of occurrence, the Special Judge E.C. Act had no jurisdiction to take cognizance against the petitioner, as the Special Court had already ceased to exist by the efflux of time and accordingly, the entire proceeding thereafter is vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. In support of his contention learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act. 1981, wherein by Section . 12-A. the power was vested with the State Government for Constitution of the Special Courts for trying the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, According to Section 1 (3) of the said Act, the life of the Act was only for five years from the date of the commencement of the Act. The said Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, got the assent of the President of India on 2nd September, 1981.

8. Subsequently, the life of the said Act was extended from time to time and the first extension was done by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act. 1987, whereby the words 'five years' were substituted by the words 'ten years' by making amendment in Section 1 (3) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. Subsequently, by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act, 1993, the amendment was made in Section 1 (3) of the Principal Act and the words 'ten years' were substituted by the words 'fifteen years' in Section 1 (3) of the Essential Commodities