MANORANJAN MULLICK J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 2/7/1981 passed by the Ld. Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly in D. G. R. Case No. 78 of 1979 under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of provisions of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order 1967. The facts are briefly as follows. ( 2 ) ON 5. 12. 1979, the petitioner was arrested by police for alleged violation of Para2 (a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licencing and Control) Order 1967 which is punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of the said charge-sheet, the Ld. . Magistrate took cognizance on 9. 7. 1980, On 6. 2. 1981, the petitioner moved a petition before the Ld. Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh praying for discharging him from the case on the ground that the case was triable under Summons case and since the charge sheet was not submitted in this case within a period of six months from the date of arrest, the continuation of the Investigation beyond the statutory period not having been extended by the Magistrate on a special prayer made by. the Investigating Police Officer being illegal the cognizance taken on the basis of the said charge-sheet is illegal and consequently there can be no trial of the accused on the basis of the said charge-sheet and he is liable to be discharged. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Ld. Magistrate, the decision of this Court reported in 83 CEN 659 was cited. The Ld. Magistrate in his elaborate order repealed the submission made on behalf of the accused and having held that the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is a warrant case, observed that it was difficult to accept the idea that a warrant case like this case would become a Summons Case because it is summarily triable and simply because in holding summary trial procedure of summons case is to be followed. He has further observed that the case does not lose its original character as a warrant case and it remains a warrant case even though its trial is held summary and during its trial procedure of a summons case is followed. He has further observed that the case does not lose its original character as a warrant case and it remains a warrant case even though its trial is held summary and during its trial procedure of a summons case is followed. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the accused petitioner has moved this Court in revision. It is submitted that the Ld. Magistrate committed a great illegality in observing that as the offence under section. 7 (1) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is a warrant case section 167 (5) of Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted, that it is not material that case is a warrant can or not and what is material for the purpose of invoking of section 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the offence is triable as the summons case and when the offence under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, as it then stood, was trible under a summons procedure and when under section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code a summary trial is to be held under the summons procedure, then the Ld. Magistrate clearly in error in holding that the case continues to be a warrant case if triable as a summary trial. ( 5 ) THE Ld. Advocate for the State opposes the revision petition. My attention has also been drawn to the recent decision of a single Bench of this court reported in 1986 (ii) CHN 267 Lakshmi Kanta Dey-vs-State of West Bengal where the Ld. Judge also took the view that Section 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not be attracted when the offence were punishable under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act even when the trial was to be held by the Special Judge under section 12a of the Essential Commodities Act under a summary procedure and for trial under summary procedure of the summons case has got to be followed. ( 6 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by U. Advocate appearing for the petitioner I am of the view that subsection (5) of section 167 of the Code is attracted when the case is triable under the summons procedure under the Cede of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by U. Advocate appearing for the petitioner I am of the view that subsection (5) of section 167 of the Code is attracted when the case is triable under the summons procedure under the Cede of Criminal Procedure. The offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the E. C. Act merits maximum penalty of 7 years and that offence is not triable as a summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Essential Commodities Act under Section 12 A, stood at the material time enacted that the Magistrate holding the trial of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was to conduct the trial under summary procedure. There 15 a no doubt that the Magistrate holding the summary trial has to adopt the procedure of summons case. But only because the trial of the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act has to be held under summary procedure it cannot be a trial of a summons case. Such an offence is not triable as a summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If under a Special statute special provision is made by which a warrant triable case is ordered to be tried as a summary trial as provided in section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that only because such trial is to be under summons procedure such offence cannot be treated as one triable as a summons case. Only because of the special provisions made in the Essential Commodities Act, the Magistrate has to adopt the summary procedure. This is what has also been dealt with and found by the Ld. Judge in the case reported in 1986 (II) CRN 267. There the question was to whether Section 167 (5) of the Code would be attracted before a special Judge holding under section 12aa of the Act for an offence under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The Ld. Judge has held that offences punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act cannot be treated as a summons case. The Ld. Judge has further observed that the argument that section 262 having been applicable to all the cases before the special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act. The Ld. Judge has held that offences punishable under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act cannot be treated as a summons case. The Ld. Judge has further observed that the argument that section 262 having been applicable to all the cases before the special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act. It has made such warrant in a summons case if not tenable that clause (f) of section 12aa has made all the offences under the Essential Commodities Act triable in a summary way that in trial of such cases application of section 262 has been made for the purpose of determining the procedure to be applied and for no other purpose and that the offences triable under the Essential Commodities Act have become triable in a summary way only because of clause (f) of section 12aa of the Special Provisions Act. With the above observations, the learned Judge has negatived the contention that section 167 (5) of the Code is attracted when the offence committed by the accused is under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. Though that decision is in respect of a trial before the special Judge, the reasoning which the Ld. Judge has given, for holding the view that section 167 (5) of the Act is not attracted for the offence u/s 7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities applies with all force in a case when in view the section 12a of the Essential Commodities Act as it then stood the Magistrate is to hold trial of the offence under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act as a summary trial. Thus, I am unable to accept the contentions of the Id. Advocate for the petitioner. I hold that the Ld. Magistrate was quite justified in rejecting the petitioners application praying for discharging him from the case. In the result the revision petition be dismissed and the Rule be discharged. Let the records be sent down to the Ld. Magistrate at once.