Order The important question of law that arises in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions is, whether the Special Court, constituted under the Essential Commodities Act , hereinafter referred to as the Act, can take cognizance of an offence under the said Act on a report made by a public servant other than a police official by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act. 2. In Crl.M.P.No.4858 of 1983 the respondent therein-the Agricultural Officer (Inputs), Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Erode has launched this criminal prosecution against the petitioner therein in the Special Court for Essential Commodities, Coimbatore violation of Clause (10), 13(b)(ii) and 21(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act in S.T.C.No.6 of 1983. In Cr.M.P.No.7677 of 1984 the respondent therein-the Special Tahsildar, Sugarcane Procurement, Udumalpet Taluk, has filed this Criminal prosecutionagainst the petitioner therein in the Special Court for Essential Commodities, Coimbatore, for violation of the direction issued under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1976, punishable under Section 7(i) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in S.T.C.No.22 of 1984. It is to quash these proceedings the accused have come forward with these petitions. 3. Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Act introduced by the Amendment Act (18 of 1981.) lays down that “A Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial”. On the basis of this Clause, it is contended by the learned Counsel for he petitioner-accused that the amendment introduced by the Amendment Act (18 of 1981) is a self-contained Code in itself and the Special Court can take cognizance of offences under the Act only on the report filed by the police and not by any other public servant. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Satish Chandra De IN RE. (1984) Crl.L.J. 1532 where it has been held that so long as the Amending Act (18 of 1981 ), which is of a temporary character, operates in the field, Section 11 of the Act which enables any public servant to file a complaint for an offence under this Act cannot be taken recourse to, to prosecute a person accused of an offence under the Act. 4. 4. It will now be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act: “Section 11 : Cognizance of Offences: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). Section 12-A : 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 (substituted by the Amendment Act 18 of 1981)”. Section 12-AA has been introduced by the Amendment Act 18 of 1981 and the provisions relevant for our purpose are as follows: “Section 12-AA. Offences triable by Special Courts: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,… (a) all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the 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; ………. (c) a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial”. “12-AC: 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 purpose of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor”. “Code” means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974 ) vide Section 2(i)(a) of the Act. 5. It is seen from Section 12-AC of the Act quoted above that the Special Court constituted under this Act shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. Section 12-AA(1)(a), extracted above, renders all offences under this Act triable only by the Special Court, which is a Court of Session. 5. It is seen from Section 12-AC of the Act quoted above that the Special Court constituted under this Act shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. Section 12-AA(1)(a), extracted above, renders all offences under this Act triable only by the Special Court, which is a Court of Session. It follows that all the offences under the Essential Commodities Act are made offences triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original Jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the said Code, except as otherwise expressly provided by that Code, or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 12-AA(1)(e) of this Act provides that exception by which the Special Court constituted under this Act, which is deemed to be a Court of Session, is empowered 1o take cognizance of an offence under this Act upon a perusal of the police report without the accused being committed to it for trial. So far, the position is clear and does not admit of any doubt. 6. The further contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that by virtue of Section 12-AA introduced by the Amendment Act (18 of 1981 ), Section 11 of the Act becomes inoperative and the Special Court can take cognizance of an offence under this Act only on the report filed by the police under Section 12-AA(1)(e), does not appear to be sound. With due deference to the learned Judge who has decided Satish Chandra De IN RE. (1984) Crl.L.J. 1532, referred to above, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the view that during the subsistence of the Amending Act (18 of 1981 ), recourse cannot be taken to Section 11 of the Act and no public servant other than a police official can file a complaint for an offence under this Act. If such were the intention of the Legislature, it could have done so by deleting Section 11 of the Act. The Amendment Act (18 of 1981 ) has not, in the least, touched or affected Section 11 of the Act. If such were the intention of the Legislature, it could have done so by deleting Section 11 of the Act. The Amendment Act (18 of 1981 ) has not, in the least, touched or affected Section 11 of the Act. Hence Section 11 cannot be rendered nugatory or inoperative, albeit for a short time, by judicial interpretation when the legislature could have but has not chosen to do so. We have, therefore, to aim at a harmonious construction. 7. As already pointed out, all offences under this Act are made triable exclusively by the Court of Session under Section 12-AA(1)(a) of the Act viz., the Special Court constituted under this Act which is deemed to be a Court of Session. No Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate and exception to this Rule is made under Section 12-AA(1)(e) by which this Special Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence under this Act without the accused being committed to it for trial where a report is filed by the police. The result is, where a complaint of an offence under this Act is filed by a public servant other than a police official, the Special Court constituted under the Act cannot take cognizance of it as a Court of original jurisdiction. In such a case, the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences triable exclusively by a Court of Session in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report will have to be followed. Such a complaint by a public servant other than a police official has, therefore, to be filed before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, who has to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath as laid down in the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code and commit the accused to take his trial before the Special Court of Session under Section 209 of the Code. The Special Court shall then take cognizance of the offence in accordance with Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with trial before a Court of Session. The Special Court shall then take cognizance of the offence in accordance with Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with trial before a Court of Session. In other words, where a charge-sheet is filed by the police for an offence under this Act, the Special Court can straightaway take cognizance of it as a Court of original jurisdiction and where the complaint is filed by a public servant other than a police official, the said complaint will have to go through the gauntlet of a committal proceeding. I do not find any anamoly in two different procedures being followed for the same offence depending upon the nature of the report filed before the Court and the prosecuting agency. 8. In fine, I find that the Special Court for Essential Commodities, Coimbatore, is not competent to take cognizance of the complaints filed by the respondents in these two criminal miscellaneous petitions as a Court of original jurisdiction. The Court below is, therefore, directed to return the complaints to the respondents for presentation to the concerned Magistrates. 9. No other point is urged before me. V.K. ----- Order accordingly.