JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr. PC is to quash and set-aside the proceedings drawn in Criminal Case No. 27/80 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, relating to an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It may be stated at the out-set that the case is being tried according to summary trial. The prosecution evidence is over and now the case is fixed for the defence evidence. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this case ought to have been tried as a warrant case and the learned Magistrate to, had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily There is no force in this contention. Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 authorises the learned Magistrate, to try the case summarily notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 12A and has contended that a maximum sentence of 7 years is provided for the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and as such the case cannot be tried summarily. 2. In my view, the proviso in question does not apply because it can be brought into application only when at the commencement of, or in the course of, summary trial under this Section it appears to the Magistrate, that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties record an order to that effect and thereafter call any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear or re-hear the case in the manner provided by the said Code. In the present case, the Magistrate nowhere held that it appeared to him that looking to the nature of the case, a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the case was initially stated as a warrant case and the petitioner under that impression did not properly cross examine the prosecution witnesses as he remained under the impression that he would get second opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the case was initially stated as a warrant case and the petitioner under that impression did not properly cross examine the prosecution witnesses as he remained under the impression that he would get second opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. There is no warrant for the assumption as no such ground has been taken in this petition Merely because the order-sheet dated 9-3-81 makes a mention that Ajay Kumar, witness be sent back as already an opportunity has been given to cross-examine him, it cannot be inferred that the Magistrate, was trying the case as a warrant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that from the charge framed no offence under the Drugs Price Control Order, 1970 has been made out. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to sell the drugs by adding local tax on the retail prices. In case, such local taxes have been charged on the retail price fixed under the Control Order, the petitioner has not committed any offence. He has further argued that PW 1, in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not calculated the prices after adding the local tax. 3. There can be no dispute that in case the aforesaid contentions are held proved by the trial court, in that case the petitioner would be entitled to acquittal. However, on the basis of the above arguments made in this court, the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr. PC. The case is at the final stage in the trial court and only defence evidence has to be led and under these circumstances there is no ground or justification for quashing the proceedings. The petitioner would be entitled to raise all the contentions made in this court before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and he would decide the case according to law. The petitioner has also contended that the charge itself does not make a mention that the petitioner had charged the prices exceeding the retail prices plus local taxes, and only make a mention that the petitioner had charged more prices than those fixed under the Drugs Price Control Order. The petitioner has also contended that the charge itself does not make a mention that the petitioner had charged the prices exceeding the retail prices plus local taxes, and only make a mention that the petitioner had charged more prices than those fixed under the Drugs Price Control Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the charge itself does not make a mention of any price being charged by the petitioner exceeding the retail price plus local tax and as such proceedings should be quashed As already observed above no interference can be made in the framing of charge by this court under Section 482 Cr. PC. In case no offence is made out as contended by the petitioner on the basis of the charge framed against him, it would be open for him to raise this contention also before the trial court and it would be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. 4. With these observation this petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******