( 1. ) THE applicant Sonelal was convicted under section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, which is an order issued under section 3 of the Act. The case against the applicant started on a complaint made by the Food Inspector on June 25, 1968 to Shri S. N. Tiwari, Magistrate first Class, Jabalpur. The case laid in the complaint was that on April 15, 1968 the applicant who was a shop-keeper was found in possession of 10 quintals of rice and 6 quintals of broken rice for sale which showed that the applicant was dealing in Food grain in contravention of clause 3 of the Licensing Order. The rice and broken rice were seized by the Food Inspector. On November 13, 1968 the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge and was on the same date convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 100. The foodgrains that were seized were forfeited to the state. After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction in the Court of the First additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, the applicant has approached this Court in revision.

( 2. ) THE only contension raised by Shri Gambhir, learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time when the applicant was tried and convicted Shri tiwari, the Magistrate, was not empowered under section 12-A of the Essential commodities Act to try offences relating to contravention of Madhya Pradesh foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order and the trial and conviction of the applicant by Shri Tiwari were without jurisdiction.

( 3. ) TO appreciate the contention raised by Shri Gambhir it is necessary to refer to section 12-A. This section was inserted in the Essential Commodities Act by section 2 of Act 47 of 1964. It was to cease to have effect on 31st December 1966 but by subsequent Acts (see Acts 14 and 36 of 1967) its life was extended from time to time. The section is divided into four subsections. Sub section (1) empowers the Central Government to specify any order made under section 3 as a special order for purposes of summary trial if it is of opinion that a situation has arisen wherein the interests of production, supply or distribution of any essential commodity or trade or commerce therein and other relevant considerations, it is necessary that the contravention of the order should be tried summarily. In exercise of the power conferred by this provision the Central Government notified certain orders issued under section 3 in relation to food-stuffs including edible oil seeds and oils to be special orders for purposes of summary trial ; (see G. S. R 1842 dated December 24, 1964 as amended by G. S. R. 810 dated June 3, 1965 ). The Madhya Pradesh Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order is one of the orders included in the list of special orders so notified. After a notification is issued under sub-section (1) specifying an order to be a special order, sub-section (2) requires that all offences relating to contravention of such special order be tried in a summary way and by a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. The wording of this sub section is important and is as under :

"section 12-A (2); where any notification issued under sub-section (1) in relation to a special order is in force, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), all offences relating to the contravention of such special order shall be tried in a summary way and by a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the state, Government or by a Presidency Magistrate, and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial: provided that, in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. "

Sub-sect