Hon’ble Surendra Singh, J.—The applicant by way of filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has sought to quash the charge-sheet No. 115 of 2007 dated 23.9.2007 as well as impugned order taking cognizance dated 4.12.2007, bailable warrant dated 18.2.2012 as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2007 under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the applicant was a licensee of fair price shop. Due to certain irregularities committed, a written complaint was made against her to the concerned District Magistrate by the beneficiaries. A preliminary inquiry proceeded against her by the opposite party No. 2. It was prima facie found that she had violated the terms and conditions of the license of fair price shop dealership. In this regard, an F.I.R. was lodged against her under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act on 21.8.2007 at Police Station Bhot, District Rampur vide Case Crime No. 456 of 2007 at the instance of opposite party No. 2. As usual the crime was investigated, which culminated into submission of charge-sheet dated 23.9.2007 against the applicant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur. The cognizance of offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was taken by the learned Magistrate on 4.12.2007 and it was registered as Case No. 4300 of 2007 (State v. Smt. Shakila). Summons for appearance of the applicant was duly issued and on non-appearance before the Court, bailable warrant was issued against her vide order dated 18.2.2012, hence this application.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of Section 12-AA of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence punishable under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Special Judge (E.C.Act) alone was competent to take cognizance. It was further submitted that, therefore, entire criminal proceeding before the learned Magistrate is vitiated by the law and deserves to be set at rest.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.

The question that falls for determination in this case is whether special Court which ceased to be Special Court under the provisons of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 still has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence or to remand the accused to the custody who is implicated for the offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Essential Commoties Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Principal Act”) provides for regulation of production, supply and pricing of essential commodities. This Act had been amended from time to time. In spite of extensive amendments made to the Principal Act, some of the existing provisions of that Act have not been adequate and effective for expeditious disposal of the cases as well as ensuring availability of the essential commodities at fair prices and for curbing hoarding and blackmarketing of and profiteering in, such commodities. Moreso, there were large number of Court cases pending under the Principal Act all over the country. For dealing more effectively with persons indulging in anti-social activities, it was considered necessary to make special provisions by way of amendments to the Principal Act for temporary period of 5 years and viewed with this perception, special provisions were brought by way of amendment to the Principle Act. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Provisions’) consequently came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 in all the States and Union Territories. This special provision was enforced initally for a period of 5 years and was exten