S. P. DAS GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a shop styled as M/s Ghosh and Company at Ghosh Para Road, P. S. Titagarh in the district of 24-Parganas. He was arrested on 17. 9. 78 for violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1968 and the provisions of the West Bengal Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1977. An oil tanker loaded with 9000 litres of Kerosene Oil stock and sale registers, cash memo book and other documents were seized on 17. 9. 78 from the shop of M/s Ghosh and Companr. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore on 19. 9. 78, as he was granted bail from the Police Station after his arrest on 17. 9. 78. His prayer for bail had to be deferred for non-filing of the first information report. After filing of the first information report he was granted bail by an order passed on 2 5. 9. 78. There was a prayer by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate for an order for distribution of the seized Kerosene Oil to the retail shops authorised to sell Kerosene oil. On 25. 9. 78 the learned Magistrate directed the sale of the seized Kerosene Oil through the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies to the authorised retailers in presence of the Investigating Officer and for deposit of the sale-proceeds in the treasury. Subsequently, on 12. 11. 80, a petition was filed by the Investigating Officer alleging noncompliance with the courts order dated 25. 9. 78 by the petitioner. On 1. 12. 80 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to deposit the sale proceeds of the seized Kerosene oil by 8. 12 80 and to produce the challan by 15. 12. 80. It is against this order dated 1. 12. 80 as well as the continuation of the proceeding in the court of the learned Magistrate beyond six months after the arrest of the petitioner on 17. 9. 78, that the present revisional application has been filed. ( 2 ) MR. 12 80 and to produce the challan by 15. 12. 80. It is against this order dated 1. 12. 80 as well as the continuation of the proceeding in the court of the learned Magistrate beyond six months after the arrest of the petitioner on 17. 9. 78, that the present revisional application has been filed. ( 2 ) MR. Bose, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the offences alleged fall within the ambit of sections 3 (2) (h) and 3 (2) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Actt for the sake of convenience) and are punishable under section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Act with imprisonment which may extend to one year and also fine and hence, the case was a summons case which ought to have been tried under the summary procedure under section 12a of the Act, prior to the amendment of the Act by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Amending Act for the sake brevity ). The contention is that as under section 12a of the Act, the offence for contravention of an order made under section 3 of the Act was to be tried in a summary way and. the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were, as far as might be, to apply to such trial, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the case as done by him, after expiry of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner on 17. 9. 78, when, in view of the provisions under section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate was to make an order stopping further investigation into the offence for non-conclusion of the investigation within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner, unless the investigating officer satisfied the learned Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice, the continuance of the investigation beyond the period of six month was necessary. As the investigation was not concluded in this case within a period of six months from 17. 9. 78, Mr. Bose contends that all orders passed by the learned Magistrate after expiry of six months from 17. 9. 78, are without jurisdiction. He further contends that the order dated 1. 12. As the investigation was not concluded in this case within a period of six months from 17. 9. 78, Mr. Bose contends that all orders passed by the learned Magistrate after expiry of six months from 17. 9. 78, are without jurisdiction. He further contends that the order dated 1. 12. 80 passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous as the seized Kerosene oil was in the custody of the Investigating Officer and was to be sold through the Sub Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, as per the order of the learned Magistrate dated 25. 9. 78. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the State is that the petitioner ought to have made such submissions, as made by Mr. Bose in this Court, in the court below and not before the High Court. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing Mr. Bose and the learned Advocate for the State, I am of the opinion that all the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the case after expiry of six months from 17978, the date of arrest of the petitioner, are without jurisdiction. The Amending Act is to remain in force for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the Amending Act on 1. 9. 82, though assent of the President was received on 2. 9. 81. Section 2 of the Amending Act is to the effect that during the continuance in force of the Amending Act, the Act of 1955 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in sections 3 to 11 of the Amending Act. There is a proviso to section 2 of the Amending Act. The proviso is to the effect that the amendments specified in sections 7 to 11 of the Amending Act shall not apply to, or in relation to, any offence under the principal Act (viz. the Act of 1955) committed before the commencement of the Amending Act and the provisions of the principal Act shall apply to and in relation to, such offence as if these amendments had not been made section 11 of the Amending Act has substituted new sections 12a, 12aa, 12ab, and 12ac, in place of section 12a of the Act, as it stood prior to the Amending Act. The result is that for the alleged offence committed on 17. 9. The result is that for the alleged offence committed on 17. 9. 78, the proceeding was to be continued in the court of the learned Magistrate under section 12a of the Act and was not to be continued in the Special Court constituted under section 12a of the Amending Act. The combined effect of section 3 (2) (h) and section 3 (2) (i) read with section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Act is that the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and also fine. For trial of such an offence the procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate, will be the summary procedure under section 262 to 265, Cr. P. C. in view of section 12a (2) of the un-amended Act. Section 262 (1), Cr. P. C. is to the effect that the procedure for summary trial will be the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of summons case with some variations. The provisions of section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. will thus apply in this case. It is not disputed that the charge-sheet was not filed by the police till the Rule was issued by this Court in this case on 9. 12. 80. The learned Magistrate ought not to have continued the proceeding after expiry of six months from 17. 9. 78, the date of arrest of the petitioner, when no prayer was made by the Investigating a officer before the learned magistrate for permitting the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months. On the orders passed by the learned Magistrate beyond six months from 17. 9. 78 are thus without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE order dated 1. 12. 80 passed by the learned Magistrate appears to be misconceived as the learned Magistrate himself passed an order on 25. 9. 78, directing the sale of the seized Kerosene oil through the Sub Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies to the authorised retailers in presence of the investigating Officer, with whom the seized Kerosene Oil was lying and deposit of the sale- proceeds in the treasury. As the seized Kerosene oil was not in the custody of the petitioner and as there was no direction on the petitioner to sell the seized Kerosene oil, the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 1. 12. As the seized Kerosene oil was not in the custody of the petitioner and as there was no direction on the petitioner to sell the seized Kerosene oil, the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 1. 12. 80 directing the petitioner to deposit and produce the sale proceeds and the challan by 8. 12. 80 and 15. 12. 80 respectively. ( 6 ) THE revisional application is, accordingly to be allowed. ( 7 ) THE revisional application is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned order dated 1. 12. 80 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The proceeding in Case No. G. R. E. 327 of 1978 in the court of the learned Magistrate is quashed, as all the orders passed by the learned Magistrate after the expiry of six months from 17/9/1978 are without jurisdiction. This quashing of proceeding will not have the effect of return of the seized Kerosene oil to the petitioner. The fate of the seized Kerosene oil will abide the decision of the Collector, before whom a prayer for confiscation of the seized Kerosene Oil was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 6a of the Act, as per the order of the court below dated 12/11/1980. The petitioner is discharged from the bail-bond. .