JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The opposite party is the Executive Officer of Mastram Math, Mansihgh Patna. Cuttack. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a house belonging to the aforesaid Math. The opposite party initiated H. R C. Case No. 36 of 1984 u/s 7 of the Orisse House Rent Control Act, 1967 ('Act' for short) for eviction of the petitioner therefrom. The matter is now pending in the appellate Court. On 22. 3. 1985 the petitioner without the permission of the landlord or the House Rent Controller thatched the house despite protests. Therefore, the opposite party filed a complaint petition against the petitioner for violation of Section 10 which is punishable u/s 17 of the Act. Cognisance of the offence was taken on 29.3.1985. On 29. 4. 1985 the petitioner filed a petition stating that the alleged offence u/s 17 of the Act shall be enquired into or tried by the House Rent Controller and not by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, because, the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) is not applicable to the case. Therefore, the criminal proceeding is liable to be dropped. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate after hearing both parties held that the offence u/s 17 of the Act shall be tried according to the provisions of the Code. So he rejected, the petition by the impugned order against which the present criminal revision has been filed. 2. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the offence u/s 17 of the Act shall be enquired into or tried by the House Rent Controller or by a Judicial Magistrate according to the provisions laid down in the Code. 3. Section 17 of the Act is a penal provision which lays down that if any person contravenes any provision of the Act or any Rules or Orders made thereunder, he shall be deemed to have committed an Offence and shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with, both. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules made thereunder (Orissa House Rent Control Rules, 1968) making provision as to how an offence punishable u/s 17 of the Act shall be tried. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules made thereunder (Orissa House Rent Control Rules, 1968) making provision as to how an offence punishable u/s 17 of the Act shall be tried. There is also nothing to indicate that the House Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to try an offence punishable u/s 17 of the Act. Therefore, even if the Orissa House Rent Control Act is a special Act, in the absence of any provision as indicated above, the House Rent Controller cannot try an offence punishable u/s 17 of the Act. 4. In Section 17 of the Act, the word "offence" has been used which has not been defined in Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the word "offence" occurring therein shall receive the meaning according to its definition in Section 2(n) of the, Code which means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made u/s 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The definition of "offence" thus shows that any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force is an offence. The Orissa House Rent Control Act provides penalty for offences under the Act or any Rules or Orders made thereunder in Section 17 thereof. Thus, an offence under the Act is an "offence" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Code. 5. Section 4(2) of the Code lays down that 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. The expression "same provisions" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code means the provisions laid down in the Code. This is particularly so, because, adequate machinery has not been provided in the Act for trial of offences u/s 17 thereof. The expression "same provisions" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code means the provisions laid down in the Code. This is particularly so, because, adequate machinery has not been provided in the Act for trial of offences u/s 17 thereof. Section 5 of the Code is a saving provision which lays down that nothing contained in this 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 crnferredor any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other taw for the time being in force. This provision was interpreted in Bhim Sen Vs. The State of U. P.. The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a case of theft u/s 379, IPC, should have been tried under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 instead of the Court of general criminal jurisdiction according to the provisions laid down in the Code. It was held that the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts u/s 5 of the Code is comprehensive. That section enjoins that all offences under the Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained therein. To the extent that no valid machinery is set up under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act for the trial of any particular case, the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal Court u/s 5 cannot be held to have been excluded. Exclusion of jurisdiction of a Court of general jurisdiction can be brought about by the setting Up of a Court of limited jurisdiction, in respect of the limited field, only if the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative. Where there is no adequate machinery for the exercise of this jurisdiction in a specific case, it cannot be held that the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of such a (ase by the Court of general jurisdiction is illegal. In the Code of Criminal Procedure by V. Jagannath Rao (1982 Edition) a chart has been, supplied at page 15 showing that in respect of special Acts where no special procedure has been laid down, the provisions of the Code will generally apply. In the Code of Criminal Procedure by V. Jagannath Rao (1982 Edition) a chart has been, supplied at page 15 showing that in respect of special Acts where no special procedure has been laid down, the provisions of the Code will generally apply. This view has been accepted by a large number of High Courts, the citations of which appear in the chart and which need not be repeated, The position of law is, therefore, clear that if a special machinery is provided for trial of offences under a special Act, then the procedure laid down in that Act shall be followed. But if no such machinery has been provided for trial of offences under such special Act, then the provisions of the Code shall apply for trial of such offences, in the instant case, as already referred to above, no special procedure has been laid down in the Act for trial of offences u/s (sic). Therefore, the provisions of the Code for trial of such offences are bound to apply. This view finds .support from a decision of this Court reported in 53(1982) CLT.112. Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi, in which some of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were invoked with reference to' an offence u/s 17 of "the Act. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the House Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try an offence u/s 17 of the Act. Such an offence can only be tried by a Judicial Magistrate according to the provisions laid down in; the Code of Criminal Procedure. This being the settled-position of law, the view expressed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial" Magistrate, Cuttack, must be upheld. The criminal revision has no merit and is. accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed