Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY and ABHIRAM SINGH JJ. 1. By this application under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the petitioners have prayed for releasing them on bail in connection with Lalpur P. S. case No. 90/83. 2. On a written report made on 24-7-1983 by the District Supply Officer. Ranchi, Lalpur P. S. case No. 90/83 was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (the Act). According to the report on receipt of a confidential information that 25 trucks of beaf tallow were sold out in the Ranchi market and stock of tallow was laying in the Chhotanagpur Engineering Works Circular Road, Ranchi, close Watch was kept on the said premises. On 22-7-1983 at about 5.15 P. M. one vehicle, ORS 671 was intercepted at the godown of that Engineering Works and the same was taken to police station. On inspection 533 tins each of 16.5 kgs. approximately, were found in the lorry. Out of these 300 tins, each of 16.5 kgs, Sun Flower Brand, Vanaspati with manufacturers seal and two hundred eighty three tins (283) with assorted labels were found. On 23-7-1983, Munshi of M/s. Jetha Lal Satyanarain of Upper Bazar produced photo copy of the permits, cashmemo and copy of the receipt of 300 tins of Vanaspati found in the Lorry which was said to have been transported to M/s Madan Lal Murarka of Tatanagar Samples were taken from those 300 tins by keeping the seal intact. It was alleged that Ratan Lal Adhukia, petitioner No. 1 was present at the godown of that Engineering Works when the vehicle was intercepted on also came to the police station when the tins were being counted. Further enquiry was made at the Engineering Works with regard to 283 tins found in the vehicle which six hundred twenty five tins (625) said to contain Coconut Oil, K. M. P. Brand were found in the premises on 23-7-1983. The proprietor of Engineering Works, Arun Modi gave in writing that those tins of Coconut Oil were stored by M/s. Raj Trading Company Upper Bazar, Ranchi for which the letter had taken the godown on rent. Arun Modi submitted a photo copy of his letter, dated 20th July, 1983 duly accepted by M/s. Raj Trading Company about this fact. The proprietor of Engineering Works, Arun Modi gave in writing that those tins of Coconut Oil were stored by M/s. Raj Trading Company Upper Bazar, Ranchi for which the letter had taken the godown on rent. Arun Modi submitted a photo copy of his letter, dated 20th July, 1983 duly accepted by M/s. Raj Trading Company about this fact. Though Ratan Adhukia was present when the vehicle was entercepted and when the tins were counted but did not appear on 23-7-1983 for sampling, nor any body came forward to claim the 283 tins. The agreement between Arun Modi and M/s. Raj Trading Company appeared to be connected. It further appeared that M/s. Jeth Lal Satyanarain and Raj Trading Company were maintaining unauthorised godown in the premises of Chhotanagpur Engineering Works and they had violated the terms and conditions of the licence issued under the Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order 1967, which was punishable under Section 7 of the Act. 3. Thereafter, out of the seized tins 283 this containing tallow were claimed by Raj Trading Company of which petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Vijay Adhukia and Binod Adhukia were partners. The tallow was received on 17-5-1983 from M/s. Liberty Oil Mill and M/s Union Industries Bombay, through different consignments. Petitioner Binod Adhukia on 25-7-1963 applied to the District Supply Officer for releasing 283 tins of tallow. So far petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it was stated that he had no concern with M/s. Raj Trading Company. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 3-7-1983 and produced in Court on 1-8-1983. They applied for bail, but the case was rejected by the Special Judge as also by this Court. An application thereafter was filed on 27-9-1983 by the petitioners before the Special Judge, in which they stated that since ¬0 days had expired from the date of their arrest and the investigation had not been completed, they should be released under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. The Special Judge, by order dated 23-9-1983, held that they were not entitled to bail under the case. The petitioners thereafter filed the present application. 5. On 11-10-1983 the learned single Judge, after hearing learned counsel of the parties was of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench to decide as to whether in a case instituted under Section 7 of the Act. provisos to Section 167(2) is applicable. The petitioners thereafter filed the present application. 5. On 11-10-1983 the learned single Judge, after hearing learned counsel of the parties was of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench to decide as to whether in a case instituted under Section 7 of the Act. provisos to Section 167(2) is applicable. This is how the matter was listed before this Bench. 6. By an amendment in 1981, some new Sections were inserted in the Act, We are concerned in this case with Section 12-A and the sections thereafter up to Section 12-AC Section 12-A provides for constitution of a Special Court for providing speady trial of offence under the Act. It inter alia, further provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a Special Court. Unless he is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court or he has, for a period of not less than one year, been a Sessions Judge or as Additional Sessions Judge. Section 12-AA provides that offence under the Act shall be triable only by a Special Court, Relevant portion of Section 12-AA(1)(b) provides that where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Acr is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2-A) of Section 167 of the Code, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate. Other relevant provisions of Section 12-AA(1) which are required to be noticed and referred at the Bar read as follows : "12-AA(1)(c) : The Special Court may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d) of this sub-section, exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under Clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section ; (d) Save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Special Court or the High Court : Provided that a Special Court shall not release any such person on bail (i) without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application for such release unless the Special Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing is of opinion that it is not practicable to give such opportunity ; and (ii) where the prosecution opposes the application, if the Special Court is satisfied that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the offence concerned : Provided further that the Special Court may direct that any such person may be released on bail if he is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm person, or if the Special Court is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason to be recorded in writing; (e) a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts consisting constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial;" Section 12-AA (3) reads as follows : "A Special Court may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person suspected to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence under this Act, tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every, other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof and pardon so tendered shall, for the purpose oil Section 308 of the Code, be deemed to have been tendered under Section 307 thereof." Section 12-AB reads as follows : "Appeal and revision.The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXXIX and XXX of the Code on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Sessions trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court." Section 12-AC reads as follows : "Application of Code to proceedings before a Special Court.Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code including the provisions as to bail and bonds shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor." 7. Till the date this application was heard, police did not submit report and cognizance had not been taken in this case till then. 8. It was submitted by Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that there was no provision in the Act which exercises the application of the provisos to Section 167(2) of the Code with regard to an accused under Section 7 of the Act. According to him al-as of a Magistrate and that being the position, Section 167 of the Code though in some of the provisions of the Act, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions, but under some provisions he shall be deemed to be exercising powers of a Magistrate. The Special Judge therefore, it was contended, exercises powers both of a Sessions Judge as well as of a Magistrate and that being the position, Section 167 of the Code as a whole shall apply in a case under Section 7 of the Act before the Special Judge. 9. Mr. S. K. Chattopadhya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in view of the different provisions of the Act. as contained in Sections 12-AA to 12AC, the provisos of Section 167(2) of the Code are excluded. He particularly relied on the last part of Section 12-AC where it has been provided that the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions. According to him, the order of remand of an accused by the Special Judge is made under Section 309 of the Code and not under Section 167. No decision on the point was brought to our notice. 10. From the relevant provisions of the Act quoted above, it will be noticed that although for some matters the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions, but it has power like a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under the Act. Further the cognizance shall be taken upon perusal of a police report, which according to Section 2(f) of the Act, shall mean a report as envisaged under Section 170 of the Code. Under Section 12-AA(3) of the Act, the Special Court is empowered to tender pardon to a person accused of an offence and the same shall be deemed to have been tendered under Section 307 of the Code. Under Section 12-AA(3) of the Act, the Special Court is empowered to tender pardon to a person accused of an offence and the same shall be deemed to have been tendered under Section 307 of the Code. Under this provision, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions. The Special Court, therefore, exercises some of the jurisdiction conferred upon a Magistrate and some conferred upon the Court of Sessions. 11. The question that requires to be decided is whether there is any provision in the Act by which application of Section 167 of the Code as a whole or provisos to Section 167(2) have been excluded from a case triable by a Special Judge under the Act. Reference was made at the Bar in tie cases of Subh Narain Jha and others V/s. The State of Bihar, 1975 B.B.C.J. 869 and State of Tamil Nadu V/s. Krishnaswami Naidu and others, AIR 1979 SC 1255 . In Subh Narain Jhas case a Bench of this Court was required to answer whether in view of the language used in Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, an accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail under the provisos to Section 167(2) of the Code. The question was answered in negative in view of the non-obstante clause of Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules. None of the provisions notices above are in the language as of Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules. That case, therefore, does not help us,. In Krishnaswami Naidus case, with reference to Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, it was held that that Act did not take away the power of the Special Judge to exercise power under Section 167 of the Code. Since all the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, are not similar to the Act, that case also does not help us to decide this case. What is important to be noticed in Naidus case is that it was held that Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, being an amending Act, did not intend to be a complete Code relating to procedure and the provisions of the Code will apply if not inconsistent with that Act of 1952. 12. What is important to be noticed in Naidus case is that it was held that Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, being an amending Act, did not intend to be a complete Code relating to procedure and the provisions of the Code will apply if not inconsistent with that Act of 1952. 12. There is no doubt that by inserting some sections in the Act, a complete procedure has not been introduced in the Act and the provisions of the Code shall apply to proceeding before the Special Judge to the extent not excluded by the Act. It will be noticed that under the Act, if a person accused or suspected for the commission of an offence under the Act not forwarded to the Special Judge indirectly, but forwarded to a Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate, such Magistrate shall forward the accused to the Special Judge having jurisdiction, except where the case falls under the proviso to Section 8 of the Code, When such person is forwarded to the Special Judge, he shall exercise, subject to provisions of Clause 12-AA (1) (d), the same powers that a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code. Therefore, in relation to a person who is forwarded by a Judicial Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate, to the Special Judge, the latter exercised powers under Section 167 of the Code subject to Clause (d) of Section 12-AA(1). It is clear therefore, that atleast for the purpose of remand of such an accused, a Special Judge exercises powers under Section 167 of the Code and not under Section 309. 13. What is the procedure for remand with regard to an accused directly forwarded to a Special Court ? Only Section 167(2) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to remand an accused before cognizance is taken; and during enquiry or trial, both of which commence after cognizance is taken, the power of remand is under Section 309. Admittedly trial stage in this case has not reached and there is no question of any enquiry. Therefore, Section 309 is not attracted. It must be held that before cognizance is taken Special Court may remand an accused only under Section 167(2) of the Code. Faced with this, Mr. Admittedly trial stage in this case has not reached and there is no question of any enquiry. Therefore, Section 309 is not attracted. It must be held that before cognizance is taken Special Court may remand an accused only under Section 167(2) of the Code. Faced with this, Mr. Chattopadhya contended that in view of Section 12-AA (1) (d), the accused cannot be enlarged on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. 14. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Chattopadhya to the last part of Section 12-AC, which provides that the Special Court shall be deemed to be Court of Sessions to emphasise his submission that Court of Sessions has no power to enlarge an accused on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code, although remand may be under that section. It is clear that if there is no contrary provision in the Act, the provisions of the Code including the provisions of bail and bond shall apply to a proceeding before the Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. If for all purposes the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions then there was no reason why Parliament inserted Section 12-AA(3) which has been quoted above. According to the elementary rule of interpretation sub-section (3) cannot be said to be redundant. If that be the position the Special Court cannot be deemed to be a Court of Sessions for all purposes under the Code. 15. We have held that Section 167 is the only provision for remand before cognizance is taken by none of the provisions of the Act, provisos to Section 167(2) have been excluded, rather that have been made applicable in view of Section 12-AC. An accused in a case under the Act is, therefore entitled to be released under the provisos to Section 167(2) of the Code. 16. Admittedly the petitioners were taken into custody on 30th July, 1983 and more than 90 days have elapsed. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to be released, if they are prepared to furnish bail bonds. The application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail if each one of them furnishes bail bond of Rs. 16. Admittedly the petitioners were taken into custody on 30th July, 1983 and more than 90 days have elapsed. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to be released, if they are prepared to furnish bail bonds. The application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail if each one of them furnishes bail bond of Rs. 8,000/- (Eight Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Ranchi.