http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

FALGUNI DUTTA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/05/1993

BENCH:

AHMADI, A.M. (J)

BENCH:

AHMADI, A.M. (J)

PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:

1993 SCR (3) 570 1993 SCC (3) 288

JT 1993 (3) 288 1993 SCALE (2)743

ACT:

Essential Commodities Act 1955--Sections 12A. 12AA, 7(1) (a)

(ii) read with Sections 167 (5), 262 to 265, Code of

Criminal Procedure. 1973--Offences under--Trial--Summary

way--Legislative intention.

Essential Commodities Act, 1955--Section 12A--Special Court

whether empowered to exercise powers u/s. 167 (5), Code of

Criminal Procedure. 1973.

Essential Commodities Act, 1955--Sections 7 (1) (a) (ii), 2A

read with Section 167(5), Code of Criminal Procedure--Charge

Sheet filed after expiry of six months from the date of

arrest of accused--Special Court’s power to take cognizance,

try and punish--Scope of

HEADNOTE:

On 16.3.1984, the police raided the business premise and

godown of the respondents and sized certain essential

commodities which were stored there in contravention of

certain orders issued under section 3 read with section 5 of

the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the same day the

respondents were arrested for the commission of an offence

punishable under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Act. But

chargesheet was submitted under section 173, Code of

Criminal Procedure on 30.9.1986, after expiry of the period

of six months. The Special Court constituted under section

12A took cognizance of the offence on 13.3.1987 on the basis

of the charge-sheet.

The respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Special

Court to quash the proceeding since the case was triable as

a summon case in view of section 12AA (1) (f) of the

Essential Commodities Act, sub-section (5) of Section 167 of

Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted.

Relying on the decision in Kanta Dey v. The State of West

Bengal (1986) Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 158, the

Special Court rejected the application holding that the

provision of section 167 (5) of the Code had no application

to a case initiated for the commission of an offence

punishable under section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Act.

571

Respondents’ revision application against the order of

Special Court was allowed by single judge of the high Court.

The High Court relying on the decision in public Prosecutor,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

High Court of Hyderabad v. Anjaneyulu, (1986) Criminal Law

Journal 1456, held that sub-section (5) of section 167 of

the Code stood attracted. On the High court quashing the

prosecution, the respondents were discharged. The present

appeal by special leave was filed by the State against the

order of the High Court.

On the questions, 1 whether a Special Court constituted

under "Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is

empowered to exercise powers under section 167 (5) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to an accused

person forwarded to it under section 12AA (1) (b) of the Act

and (ii) whether a Special Court can take cognizance of the

offence and proceed to try and punish the accused person,

notwithstanding the fact that the charge-sheet is filed

after expiry of the period of six months from the date of

arrest of the accused person?", partly allowing the appeal,

this Court,

HELD: 1.1. From the plain language of the provisions,

introduced by Act 18 of 1981 the legislature desired to

ensure that all offences under the Act were tried by the

Special Court constituted under section 12A in a summary

manner applying the provisions of sections 262 to 265 of the

Code and further provided that in case of conviction the

sentence shall not exceed two years, bringing the offence

within the definition of a summons-case under the Code. But

for t