A charge-sheet filed by a competent public servant constitutes a report in writing and complies with the requirements of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act.

This Govern ment Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 1, 1972 acquitting the respondents in a case under section 3/7 of the Essential Com modities Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 13-8-1968 at about 8. 50 a. m. , one Mukhbir brought information to P. S. Garh that respondent Karan Singh, who held a licence for selling foodgrains and sugar at controlled rate, was going to sell sugar to respondent Rameshwar Dayal at the rate of Rs. 300/- per quintal in black market. Head Constable Ram Gir made a note of this fact in the General Diary and accompanied by some constables immediately left for the shop of respondent Karan Singh. In the village he took some witnesses and proceeded towards the shop of Karan Singh. They took position behind a Chaupal and saw a buffalo cart standing in front of the shop of Karan Singh. They also saw both the respondents loading bags in that cart. After the bags had been loaded, the respondent Rameshwar Dayal made payment to respondent Karan Singh and asked the cartman to drive the cart. In that very moment the police party made a raid and caught respondent Rameshwar Dayal at the spot. Respon dent Karan Singh, however, managed to run away from there. Head Constable Ram Gir then searched the cart and found it to be loaded with 12 bags of sugar and five bags of wheat. All the bags were seized and taken to Thana where a report was lodged. The usual investigation followed and eventually a charge-sheet against the respondents was submitted in court.

3. The respondents denied the alle gations made against them and attribut ed their false implication due to enmity.

4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents saying that compliance of the provisions of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act had not been done inasmuch as a report in writing of the facts constituting the offence against the respondents had not been filed in the case by the officer concerned.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I think that this appeal must be allowed. The learned Magis trate, as mentioned above, has not acquitted the respondents on merits. He has acquitted them solely on a technical point. According to him, the charge- sheet submitted against the respondents in this case was not a report in writing as required under S. II of the Essential Commodities Act and as such it was not open to him to take legal cognizance of the case on the basis of that charge-sheet. He took this view on the basis of the ratio laid down in A. P. Mishra v. State (A. I. R. 1956 Cal. 612. ). This ruling, in my opinion, does not represent good law. A question similar to the one before us came up for considera tion in State of U. P. v. Asha Nand Kurmi (1961 A. W. R. 255), In this case it was held that a charge-sheet submitted by a police officer amounts to a report in writing within the terms of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1 respect fully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in this case. Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act says that 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 section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this section, before a court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, two things are neces sary one is that there should be a report in writing made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, and the other is that the report should contain the facts constituting such offence. In this case a charge- sheet had been submitted by a competent public servant. All that has to be seen is whether a charge- sheet is a report in writing by a public servant or not. In my opinion, it is a report in writing by a public servant. The only difference is that unlike an ordinar