Offences committed prior to the coming into force of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (Act No. 18 of 1981) shall be tried according to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as if the amendments specified in Ss. 7 to 11 of the Act No. 18 of 1981 had not been made.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('code' for short), the petitioner, a dealer of controlled commodities of Bhubaneswar has prayed for quashing the order dt. 25-5-1981 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack taking cognizance of an offence under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ('act' for short) for contravention of Cl. 3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order ('order' for short ).

( 2 ) THE Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar inspected the business premises of the petitioner at Bhubaneswar on 3-10-1980 in between 6 p. m. and 8 p. m. The petitioner was present at the time of inspection. It was found that the list indicating the opening stock of essential commodities in his possession and the retail selling prices thereof as on 3-10-1980 was not prominently displayed in the shop, but was kept inside out of the view of customers. The list displayed the aforesaid facts as on 30-9-1980. Therefore, the Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Central Division, Cuttack who directed the Officer-in-Charge, Cuttack Vigilance Police Station to register a case under S. 7 of the Act. Accordingly, FIR was drawn up and the case was investigated. After investigation was complete, Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed an offence under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Cl. 3 of the Order. On receipt of the charge sheet on 25-5-1981, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case of the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for disposal. In due course, on 26-10-1981, on hearing parties and on consideration of documents, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar framed charges against the petitioner for having committed an offence under S. 7 of the Act to which the latter pleaded not guilty. Be it stated that although the petition under S. 482 of the Code was filed on 23-4-1982 in this Court, no reference was made to the order dt. 26-10-1981 by which charge was framed against the petitioner. No prayer was also made for quashing this order as well.

( 3 ) MR. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no prima facie case having been made out against the petitioner for contravention of Cl. 3 of the Order, the order taking cognizance of an offence under S. 7 of the Act is unsustainable. This contention is bereft of any merit in view of the clear facts stated in the report of the Inspector of Vigilance, bhubaneswar, as well as, the charge sheet to the effect that the petitioner, though a dealer of essential commodities, did not display the list prominently in the shop indicating the opening stock of such commodities in his possession, as well as, the retail selling prices thereof as on 3-10-1980. On the other hand, the list was kept inside the shop and contained the above descriptions as on 30-9-1980. Mr. Ray, urged that the petitioner did not open his shop on 1-10-1980 and 2-10-1980, because, he had gone to Puri in connection with his business. He came back in the evening of 3-10-1980 and thereafter opened the shop. Therefore, it was not possible on his part to maintain the list up-to-date as required in Cl. 3 of the Order. If the above was the real fact, it is open to the petitioner to raise the same as his defence plea during trial. This however, is not the proper stage to consider the possible defence that the petitioner may take in course of trial of the case. See AIR 1980 SC 52, and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and AIR 1980 SC 1780, Kewal Krishna v. Suraj Bhan.

( 4 ) MR. Ray then contended that in a proceeding under S. 6a of the Act, Collector, Puri held that a lenient view should be taken, because of the plausible explanation offered by the petitioner and so he dropp