Cognizance of offences under the Essential Commodities Act requires prior sanction from the District Magistrate; failure to obtain such sanction renders the proceedings invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Jai Kishan Rajpoot, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Initiation of the matter has been triggered by way of lodging F.I.R. at the behest of opposite party no.2 on dated 12.08.2021 against applicant, who had been fair price shop dealer specifying the irregularity in distribution of essential commodities; after completion of investigation, concerned Investigating Officer, vide specific order dated 06.10.2022 issued by District Magistrate, Kasganj, submitted final report on dated 17.12.2022 before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Case No.9794 of 2024 (State vs. Rajkumar), whereupon learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj took cognizance of offence under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. on dated 16.11.2024, which had been challenged through Application under section 528 BNSS No.9092 of 2025 with specific ground that order dated 16.11.2024 was not sustainable in the eye of law, since it is in complete violation of section 11 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, since no approval/sanction was taken by order of, or under the authority of District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government by general or special order and as such the cognizance and summoning order passed against the applicant without order of District Magistrate is abuse of the process of law since order passed under section 11 of Essential Commodities Act was in favour of the applicant.

3. On the basis of arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant and in the light of judgement dated 05.03.2020 passed by in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.17455 of 2012 ( Manoj Mehto vs. State of U.P. and Another ), earlier Application under section 528 BNSS No.9092 of 2025 has been allowed by way of quashing summoning order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of 2023 (Sunil Kumar vs. Raj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.440 of 2021, under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Kasganj, District- Kasganj vide order dated 21.03.2025, but at the same time, liberty was extended in favour of learned court concerned for taking cognizance against the applicant, if required as per law, in due compliance of section 11 of Act of 1955; the extract of determination along with conclusion while passing order dated 21.03.2025 is reproduced herein below:-

"6. Since, learned counsel for applicant argued the matter on legal issues as such the process to issue notice to respondent no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

7. Before proceeding, a ready reference of Section 11 of E.C. Act (State Amendment of U.P. 1955), is 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) 1[or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not]. 1[Explanation.?For the purposes of this section and section 12AA, ?recognised 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.] state amendment Uttar Pradesh.? In section 11, for the words ?by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code,? substitute the words ?by order of, or under authority from t