S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1984 also. ( 2 ) THE First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, purporting to act as a Special Court constituted under section 12 A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, vide his judgment dated 21. 3. 1984, passed in Special Criminal Case No. 21 of 1983, convicted two persons namely Vinod Kumar and Pawan Kumar under section 7 read with Section 3 of the said Act for contravening clause 3 of the M. P. Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is being aggrieved by it that accused Pawan Kumar has filed the present appeal under section 12 AB of the Act in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1984 has been similarly filed by accused Vinod Kumar. As the appeals deserve to be allowed on a question of law going to the root of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the fact of the case in detail. It is sufficient to say that it was the Sessions Judge, Raigarh who took the cognizance of the case against the two accused on 16. 4. 1983. However, thereafter, by virtue of the order dated 20-12-1983 passed by him, transferring the said case for disposal to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, the same was tried and disposed of by the latter vide his judgment dated 21-3- 1984 referred to above. ( 3 ) THE argument that the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh was vested with no jurisdiction to try the applicants as a Special Court under section 12a of the Essential Commodities Act and that their trial by him was as such void is well founded and deserves to be accepted. ( 4 ) THE relevant portion of Section 12a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as follows: 12a. Constitution of Special Courts. (1) The State Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under this Act, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute as many special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. Constitution of Special Courts. (1) The State Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under this Act, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute as many special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) A Special Court shall consist of a single Judge who shall be appointed by the High Court upon a request made by the State Government. ( 5 ) IT is also relevant to refer to section 12ab of the Act. The relevant portion of the said section i. e. clause (a) of sub-section (1), reads as under: 12ab. Offences tribal by Special Courts.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. (a) All offences Tunder this Act shall bit triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court. (Emphasis supplied ). ( 6 ) NOW, it is not in dispute that after the provisions of Section 12a of the Act came into force, the State Government vide notification dated 12. 3. 1982 constituted the Special Courts for different revenue districts of the state including Raigarh. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the High Court vide its notification dated 10-2-1983 appointed the Sessions Judges specified in column (2) of the Schedule given below the said notification as the presiding officer of the Special Courts established by the State Government. For the area of revenue district Raigarh. (Sessions Judge Raigarh was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Special Court. ( 7 ) IN the above situation, it is clear that the Sessions Judge, Raigarh had on 19-4-1983 rightly taken cognizance of the case against the two accused as a Special Court appointed under section 12a of the Act. But, then, the order dated 20-12-1983 passed by him transferring the said case for disposal to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh was misconceived. It is true that Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an Additional Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him for trial. It is true that Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an Additional Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him for trial. Bat, then, as under the provisions of Section 12 A the Special Court constituted under section 12-A alone had jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act, there was no question of the Sessions Judge exercising his power under section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and making over the case for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the clear and emphatic language, of Section 12aa of the Act the trial of the case by the Additional Sessions Judge, who had not been appointed as a Special Court under section 12a of the Act, did not amount to any such defect as could be cured under the provisions of the code of criminal procedure but was without jurisdiction and void. See: The State of U. P. v. Sabir Ali and another and Sonelal v. State of M. P. and another. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal as also Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1984 are allowed. The convictions and sentence of the accused are set aside and the case is remitted to the Special Court, Raigarh, i. e. Sessions Judge, Raigarh for fresh-trial according to law Case, remitted .