JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision arises out of the order dated 16th May, 1969 passed in Criminal Case No. 22 of 1970 State v. Kodai and others, under section 7 Essential Commodities Act. By the impugned order the S.D.M., Mahrajganj, district Gorakhpur on an application dated 15th May, 1969 by the A. P.P., summoned all the six accused persons mentioned in the chargesheet which was submitted in his court on 28th September, 1968. 2. The facts of the case are very simple. That on 22nd July, 1967 a report was lodged by jai Ram resident of Mithora Bazar, P.S. Nichlaul, district Gorakhpur that six named persons have committed offence under section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The police investigated the case and submitted the aforesaid chargesheet against three named persons with whose case we are not concerned in this revision application. The other three persons were also named in the chargesheet including the applicant before me, have been mentioned as suspects but no chargesheet was submitted against them as required u /S. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Magistrate by his order dated 20th December, 1968 observed that the case against the applicant Damodar Prasad and two others namely Shri Ram and Ram Pratap mentioned as suspects in the chargesheet have not been properly investigated he, therefore, returned the papers to the Supdt. of Police for reinvestigation by some other investigating officer of other police station. It appears that nothing was done on this direction of the Magistrate by the Supdt. of Police. In the meantime the complinant appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application but the Magistrate did not pass any order on that application and thereafter the aforesaid application by the A.P.P was filed praying that the aforesaid three persons mentioned as suspects in the chargesheet be summoned and the Magistrate on that application passed the following order : "Summon all the six accused persons on 10th June, 1969." 3. The applicant challenged the order of the Magistrate and preferred revision before the Sessions Judge and by his order dated 1st January, 1970 the Civil and Sessions judge, who heard the revision application dismissed the same and did not make a reference to this Court. Against the order of the Magistrate and that of the Civil and Sessions Judge, the applicant has preferred this revision. Against the order of the Magistrate and that of the Civil and Sessions Judge, the applicant has preferred this revision. The short question that has been argued before me by the learned counsel is that the learned Magistrate could not have taken congnizance of the case otherwise than on a complaint filed by a public servant and therefore according to the learned counsel he could not proceed further with the case. The contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel has some force. In the instant case although the charge sheet was filed by the police but the applicant and two other persons aforesaid were not named as offenders but were said to be suspects only and therefore if the Magistrate felt that the case has not been properly investigated against them, he for that purpose as it appears directed the Supdt. of Police to get the reinvestigation of the case through some S.I. of another police station. It maybe that the Supdt. of Police was satisfied with the investigation of the case and therefore he did not make any directions for reinvestigation of the case. At least from the record of the case it appears that no subsequent chargesheet was submitted by the police on the direction of the Magistrate. When the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application for summoning the opposite party and the other two persons as accused, he did not pass any order. Thereafter it appears that the A.P.P. moved an application for summoning all the six accused persons including the applicant under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. The section runs thus : "No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the 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 S. 21 of the I.P.C." 4. It was necessary that a complaint constituting offence should be filed by a public servant and not by any other person. In the instant case no complaint was filed by any public servant against the applicant and the two other suspected persons. It was necessary that a complaint constituting offence should be filed by a public servant and not by any other person. In the instant case no complaint was filed by any public servant against the applicant and the two other suspected persons. The Public Prosecutor who filed the application for summoning may be a public servant but he only moved the Magistrate for summoning the applicant and two other persons but did not give out the facts constituting the offence against the applicant and other two persons. The point, therefore, urged on behalf of the applicant is that since there was no complaint as required under section 11 of the Act, the Magistrate could not have proceeded or taken cognizance against the applicant and other two persons mentioned as suspects in the chargesheet. Learned State counsel has submitted that the Magistrate will take cognizance of an offence and not that of the offender. 5. It is true that in S. 11 the word "offence" is used for the purposes of taking cognizance. The word "offence" has been defined in Cr.P.C. in sub-S.(o) of S. 4 and from the definition any act or omission which is an offence under any Act is an offence, but for taking cognizance, in my opinion, it is inherent in the expression "offence" that the offender should be named and if no offender is named and only the offence is stated it will sometime give an absurd result. A complaint may be filed without offender being named in the complaint. The Magistrate will not be able to proceed without any offender. If we read S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act the print will be more clear. The opening words of S. 7 read thus: "If any person contravenes any order made under section 3 he shall be punished..................................". 6. Therefore the person who contravenes any order passed under section 3 of the Act is liable for the prescribed penalty and thus the naming of the offender is inherent in the word "offence" as used in S. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act and if the person has not been named as offender, the Magistrate, in my opinion, was incompetent to take cognizance of the alleged offence against suspects. The facts constituting the offence must disclose the offender, otherwise the facts remain incomplete. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The facts constituting the offence must disclose the offender, otherwise the facts remain incomplete. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The order of the Magistrate dated 16th May, 1969 is set aside. Under section 439 Cr.P.C. I also direct that the other two persons along with the applicant named as suspects need not be proceeded with in this case. 8. The record be sent back to the Magistrate concerned for further proceedings against the named offenders. The stay order dated 25th February, 1970 is vacated.