Short Note : 1. Revision was filed by the applicant Srikrishna against his conviction under section 7 read with section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for the contravention of sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the M.P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. Held: The learned counsel for the applicant raised a legal point that the trial Court conducted the trial illegally by adopting the procedure under section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) when it should have followed the procedure given under section 252 Cr.P.C. It is not disputed that the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant Shrikrishna is punishable for a period of 7 years under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence the procedure of a warrant trial ought to have been followed, although the said offence could be summarily tried in view of the provisions contained in section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act. It is apparent from the records of the Courts below, that the trial Court followed the procedure of summons trial and proceeded with the case by stating the particulars of the offence of which the applicant was accused, on the day when he appeared before the Court. As a matter of fact the procedure of warrant trial ought to have been followed. Although the case was instituted upon a challan filed by the police, it is not a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. State of M.P. v. J. Lakhan Singh, 1975 JLJ SN 61, Bhagwati Saran v. The State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 928 , State of M.P. v. Baital Nahar Singh, AIR 1666 M.P. 5, Kundallal Vs. State of M.P. 1964 JLJ SN 142, relied on. Case remanded Revision allowed.