JUDGMENT S. K. Choudhuri, J. In these two writ applications filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India a common question of law has been raised challenging the impugned orders and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed or by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in both the cases is the same person. In C.W.J.C 1467 of 1977, the petitioner has been convicted under section 6 (2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, (Bihar Act, XV 1958) (hereinafter called the Act) by the Sub-divisional officer Birpur-cum-Collector, respondent no. 3 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- by the impugned order, Annexure 7 dated the 31st July, 1976. It appears that the Anchal Adhikari forwarded the file to the Deputy Collector. Land Reforms, respondent no. 4 who initiated the Land Encroachment case no. 24 of 1973-74 and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause against the encroachment made in plot no. 233 to the extent of half decimal appertaining to Khata no. 292 in mouza Nirmali which has been recorded as Gairmazurua Am. A copy of the notice dated the 27th February, 1974 has been made Annexure 6 to the Writ application. No show cause was filed before respondent no. 4 though several adjournments were granted to the petitioner, It transpires that on 14.9.74, the Collector under the Act, viz, respondent no. 3 passed an order on the basis of which notice in form no. II under section 6 (2) of the Act, was issued for removal or the aforesaid encroachment. It is asserted in the writ application that without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of a hearing, the impugned order contained in Annexure 7 has been passed. It has been stated by the writ petitioner that the preferred an appeal before the Collector of the District, respondent no. 2 but the same was dismissed for default on 30.5.77. Thereafter be filed a restoration application but the same too was dismissed. These orders have been made in Annexure 9 and 11 respectively. The petitioner has therefore also challenged the orders contained in these two annexures. 3. In C.W.J.C. 1468 of 1977 by the impugned Annexure 5 dated the 31st , July 1976. a similar order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, respondent no. These orders have been made in Annexure 9 and 11 respectively. The petitioner has therefore also challenged the orders contained in these two annexures. 3. In C.W.J.C. 1468 of 1977 by the impugned Annexure 5 dated the 31st , July 1976. a similar order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, respondent no. 3 as that passed in the other writ application by which the petitioner has been convicted under section 6 (2) of the Act, and sentenced to pay & fine of Rs. 5,000/- for non-compliance of the order of removal from plot no. 2091 to the extent of half decimal in area appertaining to Khata no. 296 of mouza Nirmali. In this case also proceeding was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, respondent no. 4 under the Act, in relation to the aforesaid encroachment on a public land which was recorded in the record of rights as kaisare Hind and notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner. This case was registered as encroachment case no. 12 of 1973-74. The petitioner did not submit any show-cause and accordingly the proceeding was decided against the petitioner. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, respondent no. 4 noticed the petitioner on 14.9.74 calling upon him to comply with the order of removal falling which the petitioner would be liable to penalty. A copy of the said notice has been made Annexure 2. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, another notice dated 17.9.75 was issued by the Anchal Adhikari, respondent no. 5 to remove the aforesaid encroachment within a week which was received by him on 25.9.75, a copy or which has been made Annexure 3. The petitioner has asserted that he has complied with the order of removal of encroachment but inspite of that Subdivisiona1 Officer, Birpur, respondent no. 3 by his ardor dated 3.17.76 held petitioner guilty of disobedience and convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 6 (2) of the Act, by the impugned annexure in this case. It has further been averred that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector of the District respondent no. 2 but the same too was dismissed for default on 30.5.77. Thereafter an application for restoration was filed which also was dismissed. This order has been made Annexure 8. The petitioner accordingly has challenged this order also. 4 Mr. It has further been averred that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector of the District respondent no. 2 but the same too was dismissed for default on 30.5.77. Thereafter an application for restoration was filed which also was dismissed. This order has been made Annexure 8. The petitioner accordingly has challenged this order also. 4 Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of both the applications raised a common point, namely, that the Collector under the Act, who is the Sub-divisional Officer, respondent no. 3 had no jurisdiction to punish the petitioner as an accused. According to the learned counsel if there bas been non-compliance of the order of the Collector under the Act, for removal of an encroachment then cognizance should have been taken and regular trial should have been held under the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) by a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Dayal, learned Government pleader no. 2, on the other hand supported the orders passed in the two cases by contending that the Collector under the Act, had full jurisdiction to pass such order under sub section (2) of section 6 of the Act. 5. In order to appreciate the argument it is necessary to quote sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Act. They read thus: “(2) If any person does not comply with the orders passed by the Collector under this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine up to Rs. 2,000/ or with both. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the offence under this section shall be cognizable". Reading the two sub-sections together it is manifest that non-compliance of an order passed by the Collector under this section has been made punishable as indicated in subsection (2) and it has been made cognizable under sub-section (3) which begins "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", If subsection (3) would not have been there it would have become non-cognizable case, the maximum punishment being provided in sub-section (2) as one year imprisonment or with fine up to Rs. 2,000/- or with both. 2,000/- or with both. It has not been disputed at the Bar that the orders under challenge were passed by the Collector under the Act, under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 6 and the petitioner has been convicted and punished under that very sub-section. It cannot be disputed that reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) together non-compliance of an order passed by the Collector under section 6 has been made a cognizable offence. I may refer here section 4 of the Code. It speaks of trial of offences under the Penal Code and other laws. Sub, section (1) states that all the offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained Sub-section (2) of Section 4 Cr. P.C. reads thus : “(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”. Section 5 is a saving provision and reads thus : “Nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by other law for the time being in force”. Therefore, under section 5, if any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure has been prescribed under the law in force them they are saved and in such matters relevant provision of the Code would not apply. In the Act, except section 6, there is no other provision which has given any special jurisdiction or power on the authority prescribed under the Act, nor any special form of procedure has been prescribed. I have already quoted above sub-Sections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Act, and have pointed out that non-compliance of the order for removal of encroachment by the Collector under the Act, has been made cognizable offence. I have already quoted above sub-Sections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Act, and have pointed out that non-compliance of the order for removal of encroachment by the Collector under the Act, has been made cognizable offence. There being no provision as to which court would try the offence and what procedure would be followed in such cases, it is manifest that in view of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Code the provision for taking cognizance and trial as contained in the Code would apply. The same not having been followed the impugned orders passed under sub-section (2) of section 6 by the Collector under the Act, are illegal and without jurisdiction. It is on this ground alone that those orders are liable to be quashed. 6. I may refer to one section of the Code for clarification. The said section is section 345 which reads thus ; “345 (1) When any such offence as Is described in section 176, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any civil, criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of offence and after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section sentence the offender to fine note exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. (3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult”. (3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult”. This section itself gives power to any civil, criminal or revenue court to cause the offender to be detained in custody in relation to offences mentioned in that section and has further given power to take cognizance of the offence mentioned therein at any time before rising of the Court and sentence the offender to a fine as indicated in that section. The power of taking cognizance and imposing sentence have been expressly given in section 345 to those courts and it is because of this provision that the court concerned has the power to take cognizance and convict an offender after following the procedure laid down in that section. If the Court considers that higher punishment should be awarded then the procedure laid down in section 346 has to be followed. But there is no provision in the present Act, nor the Act, has given power to the Collector under the Act, to take cognizance and convict the offender for non compliance of an order for removal of encroachment. It is, therefore, manifest that in the absence of such a provision the offences in the present case were friable by any competent magistrate and the procedure laid down in the Code should have been followed. This analogy supports the view which I have taken above. 7. In the result, both the applications are allowed and the orders contained in Annexure 7 in C.W.J.C. 1467 or 1977 and Annexure 5 in C.W.J.C. 1468 of 1977 are quashed. The subsequent orders contained in Annexures 9 and 11 of C.W.J.C. 1467 of 1977 and Annexure 8 of the other writ case would be deemed to be non est. No costs. Applications allowed.