L.S. MEHTA, J.—During the night intervening April 6 and 7, 1967 accused Abdul Karim, Allah Bux and Ismail took two bags of wheat and eight bags of maize from Mod Singh and Moolchand of village Charchha, tehsil Begun with a view to smuggle them in Madhya Pradesh. They were detected that night by the police in the territory of Rajasthan, near the border of Madhya Pradesh, together with the smuggled goods. After investigation the police put up a challan in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, for contravention of Inter-zonal wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964, or in the alternative, for contravention of Rajasthan Coarse Grain Prohibition Export Order, 1966, punishable under sec. 7, read with sec. 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. All the accused were charge-sheeted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun, under the aforesaid provisions of law, to which they pleaded guilty. The said Magistrate examined two prosecution witnesses, namely, Shankarlal, Head Constable (P. W. 1) and Bashir Mohammed (P. W. 2). In their statements recorded under sec. 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused admitted that during the night intervening April 6, and 7, 1967, grain, as alleged by the prosecution, was being smuggled and taken to village Jate in Madhya Pradesh and that the same was discovered by the police. The trial court convicted Ismail, Abdul Karim and Allah Bux under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. The trial court further directed that the five camels used for conveying the grain stood forfeited to the State Government. The accused Mod Singh and Moolchand were also convicted under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and a half months. The grain bags seized by the police were ordered to be forfeited. Mod Singh and Moolchand thought it proper to rest content with the judgment of the trial court and did not go up in revision. The other three accused Abdul Karim, Allabux and Ismail felt aggrieved and went up in revision to the Court of learned District Magistrate, Chhittorgarh. The grain bags seized by the police were ordered to be forfeited. Mod Singh and Moolchand thought it proper to rest content with the judgment of the trial court and did not go up in revision. The other three accused Abdul Karim, Allabux and Ismail felt aggrieved and went up in revision to the Court of learned District Magistrate, Chhittorgarh. The District Magistrate, Chhittorgarh, Shri Raj Rajeshwar Jain, dismissed the revision application by his judgment, dated April 4, 1967. 2. Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the three accused viz. Abdul Karim, Allah Bux and Ismail, have submitted the present revision petition. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, had no jurisdiction to try the case under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated in accordance with the provisions of sec. 530, Cr.P.C. 4. Offence, with which the petitioners stood charged, obviously fell under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act 1955. The only point for determination in this revision petition is whether or not learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, had jurisdiction to try the case. Sec. 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:— "Sec. 28—Subject to the other provisions of this Code, any offence under the Indian Penal Code may be tried— (a) by the High Court, or (b) by the Court of Sessions, or (c) by any other Court by which such offence is shown in the eighth column of the second schedule to be triable. Under this section any offence under the Indian Penal Code can be tried by the High Court or the Court of Sessions. Offence can also be tried by any other Court if it is mentioned in the eighth column of the second schedule of the Code as being triable by such Court. A special Court constituted under a special Act is not covered by this section and for that sec.29 Cr.P.C. will have to be referred to. Sec. 29, Cr.P.C. is in the terms following— "Sec. 29—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Code, any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court. Sec. 29, Cr.P.C. is in the terms following— "Sec. 29—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Code, any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court. (2) When no Court is mentioned, it may be tried by the High Court or subject as aforesaid by any Court constituted under this Code by which such offence is shown in the eighth column of Second Schedule to be triable." Under the section if a Court is specified under the particular enactment by which the offence is created, it is only that Court that can try the offence. If no such Court is specified in the special enactment, creating the offence, it can be tried by the High Court or by any Court constituted under the Code and specified in this behalf in the eighth column of the second schedule of the Code. 5. Sec. 12-A of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1964) is reproduced below— "12-A. Power to try summarily.—(1) If the Central Government is of option that a situation has arisen where, in the interest 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 any order made under sec. 3 in relation to such essential commodity should be tried summarily, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such order to be a special order for purposes of summary trial under this section, and every such notification shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before both Houses of Parliament. (2) Where any notification issued under sub-sec. (1) in relation to a special order is in force, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 secs. 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. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily under this section in which the magistrate passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or of fine not exceeding two thousand rupees, or both, whether or not any order of forfeiture of property or an order u/s. 517 of the said Code is made in addition to such sentence, but an appeal shall lie where any sentence of imprisonment or fine in excess of the aforesaid limits is passed by the magistrate. (4) Where any notification is issued under sub-sec. (1) in relation to a special order, all cases relating to the contravention of such special order and pending on the date of issue of such notification shall, if no witnesses have been examined before the said date, be tried in a summary way under this section, and if any such case is pending before a magistrate who is not competent to try the same in a summary way under this section, it shall be forwarded to a magistrate so competent." A bare perusal of sec. 12-A shows that the. Central Government has been empowered to make special orders for purposes of summary trials of offences under the Essential Commodities Act. It further provides that offences under the special orders are to be tried by a Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf. It has also been provided in this section that all pending cases relating to contravention of special orders shall, under the circumstances mentioned therein, be forwarded to the special Magistrate concerned. 6. Under sec. 12-A the Government of India, New Delhi, by its Notification No. G.S.R. 1607, dated November 5, 1964, specified the purpose of sec. 12-A, Essential Commodities Act. 1955, all orders made under sec. 3 of the Act in relation to foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils. 6. Under sec. 12-A the Government of India, New Delhi, by its Notification No. G.S.R. 1607, dated November 5, 1964, specified the purpose of sec. 12-A, Essential Commodities Act. 1955, all orders made under sec. 3 of the Act in relation to foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils. In supersession of the Notification of the Government of India No.G.S.R.1807, dated November 5, 1964, the Centra] Government specified all orders made under sec. 3 of the said Act in relation to foodstuffs including edible oil-seeds and oils, to be special orders for purpose of summary trial under sec. 12-A of the Act: vide Notification No. G.S.R. 1842, dated December 24, 1964. By its Notification No.F.3(11) Jud/64, the State of Rajasthan in pursuance of sec. 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, empowered certain Magistrates of the First Class to try summarily all offences relating to the contravention of any such order made under sec. 3 of the Act as may be specified by the Central Government,. In that Notification Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, was not empowered to try cases under the special orders. Only Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chittor has been empowered to try summarily the offences in question for that area. 7. Sec. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quoted supra, says that offences under special enactment shall be tried by that Court which is mentioned in the special law. Here sec. 12-A, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with notification of the Rajasthan Government, dated November 18,1964, referred to above, specifies the Courts by which offences under the Act are triable. A case under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act, therefore, is only triable by the courts mentioned in the above notification. In the present case the offence was triable by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittor and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun. Learned Assistant Government Advocate, relied upon the words "subject to the other provisions of the Code" mentioned in sec. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he referred to the third schedule. The third schedule incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide jurisdiction. It only deals with ordinary powers of the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. To call in aid schedule 3 would result in rendering provisions of sec. 29, Cr.P.C. nugatory. What sec. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he referred to the third schedule. The third schedule incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide jurisdiction. It only deals with ordinary powers of the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. To call in aid schedule 3 would result in rendering provisions of sec. 29, Cr.P.C. nugatory. What sec. 12-A Essential Commodities Act, read with the notification of the Rajasthan State, dated November 18, 1964, means is to prescribe a particular court and in view of the words embodied in sec. 29, Criminal Procedure Code no other Court can try offences under sec. 7, read with sec. 3, Essential Commodities Act, even though the powers of other courts may be analogous or superior to those of Magistrates mentioned in the above notification. Since the second schedule itself, which prescribes the courts for the trial of offences under laws other than the Penal Code, is excluded, the question of applicability of the third schedule does not arise. In other words, the provisions of the third schedule lay down general powers and do not lay jurisdiction to try offences which the second schedule does. In this view of the matter, offences under sec. 7/3 of the Essential Commodities Act are not triable by any Magistrate other than those named in the above Rajasthan Government Notification. 8. In support of what has been stated above, a reference is made to the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sabir Ali (1). In that case Honble Hidayatullah J., speaking for the Court, observed that offences under special law shall be tried by that court which that law mentions and it is only when no court is mentioned that the eighth column of the second schedule is applicable. In Nakshed Bhagat vs. Jirekhan Sah (2) it was held that the question of jurisdiction does not depend upon the attitude adopted by the parties. It is a question of fact whether the court has jurisdiction or it has not. If it has jurisdiction, then it has jurisdiction, to try the case and the order passed by it must be deemed to be a legal order. If it has no jurisdiction, then the order passed by the court must be deemed to be illegal and liable to be set aside notwithstanding the fact that the accused has acquiesced. If it has jurisdiction, then it has jurisdiction, to try the case and the order passed by it must be deemed to be a legal order. If it has no jurisdiction, then the order passed by the court must be deemed to be illegal and liable to be set aside notwithstanding the fact that the accused has acquiesced. In Saiyad Ahmad Agha vs. The State (3) it was held,— "A defect in the jurisdiction of the Court can never be cured under S. 537, Cr.P.C. It is well settled that in criminal cases jurisdiction cannot be assumed and in regard to matters for which the legislature has made express provision, it cannot be assumed in excess of the jurisdiction so conferred. Under S.557 Cr.P.C. the Court whose proceedings are to be validated must be a Court of competent jurisdiction in respect of the particular offence charged. If the case is tried by a Magistrate not having jurisdiction, the proceedings cannot be validated and the trial must be held to be invalid irrespective of the fact whether it has occasioned a failure of justice or not." Sec. 530, Criminal Procedure Code, definitely lays down that if any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf tries an offender, his proceedings shall be void. Learned Assistant Government Advocate has cited Purshottam Jethanand vs. The State of Kutch (4), wherein it has been held that,— "Where a Magistrate of the First Class, though not empowered to do so, takes in good faith cognizance of an offence under S. 190(10) (a) and (b), the defect in the absence of any prejudice to the accused is cured by S. 529." A perusal of S. 529, Cr.P.C. demonstrates that if any Magistrate who is not empowered by any law to take cognizance of an offence under sec. 190, sub-sec. (1), clause (a) or clause(b), erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered. In the Supreme Court case the First Class Magistrate erroneously took cognizance of a case, which he was not empowered by law to take and, as such, this irregularity was not considered to be fatal, by virtue of clear language of sec. 529, Criminal Procedure Code.| But in the present case there is no question of taking cognizance of the offence erroneously. 529, Criminal Procedure Code.| But in the present case there is no question of taking cognizance of the offence erroneously. The question is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, tried a case, which he was not empowered to try, and, therefore, the proceedings, which he took, are illegal by virtue of sec. 530, Criminal Procedure Code. 9. For reasons stated above, I allow this revision petition to this extent that I hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, District Chittor, had no jurisdiction to try this case. The judgments of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, as also that of the District Magistrate, Chittor are set aside and the case is remanded to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittor, for disposal according to law.