JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioners are tenants under opposite party No. 2. They were directed to pay rent for the year 1966-67. by 9-9-1967. The Petitioners defaulted and paid the rent on 13-9-1967. On account of this delay the Revenue Officer convicted the Petitioners u/s 68 of the Land Reforms Act for contravening the direction to pay rent by 9-9-1967. He sentenced them by imposing a fine of Rs. 100/- on each, in default to Section I. for 7 days. A review application was filed against the impugned order and was rejected on 16-10-1968. The writ application has been filed against this order dated 23-11-1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. No counter has been filed by opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 has filed a counter without asserting that this order was legal. 2. Mr. Rath on behalf of the Petitioners contends that the Revenue Officer had no power to convict, the Petitioners, and that he was not vested with the powers of a magistrate, nor was there any trial for any offence. This contention requires careful examination. 3. The conviction is u/s 68(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. Section 68(1) runs thus: (1) Whoever contravenes any lawful order passed under this Act or obstructs any person from law fully taking possession of any land under this Act or makes a declaration or furnishes any information, which may be or is required to be made or furnished under this Act and which he knows to be false or has reasons to believe to be false, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. 4. It would thus appear that an offence was created under this Section and sentence was provided therein. Various ingredients prescribed in the Section must be fulfilled before a conviction can be founded upon. There,are various clauses in the Section. The one under which the Petitioners have been convicted is the first clause laying down a contravention of any lawful order under the Act. There cannot be any dispute that there was a contravention of the lawful order. The short question, however, is whether the Revenue Officer without having the magisterial power can convict the Petitioners for the offence created u/s 68. 5. There cannot be any dispute that there was a contravention of the lawful order. The short question, however, is whether the Revenue Officer without having the magisterial power can convict the Petitioners for the offence created u/s 68. 5. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows: 5. Trial of offences under Penal Code : (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall be investigated inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. Trial of offences against other laws : (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. An offences prescribed under any other law in this case u/s 68 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act shall be dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to any specific provision in the special Act. The Land Reforms Act makes no provision as to the procedure for trial of the offences created u/s 68. Consequently the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed. The offence created u/s 68 is triable as a summons case. The procedure prescribed for trial of summons cases ought to have been followed by a competent magistrate. At any rate, the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction and had not been vested with magisterial powers. The conviction is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. R.N. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed