Strict compliance with the provisions of section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act is required for taking cognizance of the offence, and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be resorted to in such cases.

By virtue of this application under section 482 Cr. P. C. applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case No. 5 of 1987 (crime case No. 78 of 1986) State v. Krishna Kumar and others under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P. S. , Konch pending before the Court of Special Judge (E. C. Act) Orai, District Jalaun.

2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are these:

3. The accused-applicant No. 1 was a fair price shop dealer. On 7. 3. 1986 at about 11 A. M. three persons were captured taking away two gunny bags of sugar. It was alleged that the applicant No. 1 had sold the sugar allotted for distribution from fair price shop to the applicants No. 2 and 3 contravened the provisions of section 3-B of Sugar Control Order, 1960. After investigation final report was submitted before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate Jalaun passed an order on 23. 9. 1986 in exercise of powers under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorising the S. H. O. Kaunch to submit final report in the Court. The Special judge (E. C. Act) after perusal of case diary took cognizance for an offence under section 3/7 of the Act against the accused-applicants.

4. Heard Shri D. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. and have perused the record.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the decision in the cases of Harish Chandra v. State of U. P. (1978 (15) ACC 374) and Hari Ram v. State of U. P. (1981 (18) ACC 345), argued that section 11 of the Act as applicable in Uttar Pradesh on the date of occurrence provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence, made by the order or under authority from the District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf.

6. The case crime No. 78 of 1986 under section 3/7 of the Act was registered on 7. 3. 1986. After investigation final report was submitted before the District Magistrate, Jalaun on 23. 9. 1986. The District Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 11 of the Act as amended by U. P. Act 9 of 1974 authorised S. H. O. Konch to submit final report in the Court. The Special Judge (B. C. Act) disagreeing with the final report summoned the "applicants for the offence under section 3/7 of the Act.

7. Section 11 of the Act 1955 provides as under:

" 11. Cognizance of offences-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 (45 of 1860) (or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not.) Explanation-For the purposes of this section and section 12-A A, "recognized consumer association" means a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force.

8. By State of Uttar Pradesh Amendment (U. P. Act 9 of 1974) the words by a person who is public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code have been substituted with words by order of, or under the authority from the District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. The Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a written report made by order of or under authority from the District Magistrate. Section 11 of the Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh requires specific order of the District Magistrate or other empowered officer for institution of prosecution. In the instant case District Magistrate had authorised the S. H. O. Konch to submit final report and not a report constituting any offence under the Act.