JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - Charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioners for having committed offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act ('Act' for short) for contravention of Clauses 3(ii) and 4 of the Orissa Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and condition 4 of the High Speed Diesel Licence issued under the aforesaid Order, On consideration of the charge-sheet, F.I.R., documents and the police case diary the learned. Special Judge, Jeypore found a prima facie case and took cognisance of the offences by order dated 11-7-1986. 2. On 26-8-1986 particulars of the offence were explained to the Petitioners to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 24-10-1986 the Petitioners raised a contention before the learned Special Judge to the effect that the order of cognizance should be recalled because facts constituting any offence had not been stated in the charge-sheet. The contention was repelled by the learned Court below and against the said order no criminal revision seems to have been filed. On the same day P.W. 1 was examined some documents were admitted into evidence and trial of the case is in progress. 3. Mr. Pasayat, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the facts of the case constituting the offences having not been revealed in the charge-sheet, no prima facie case against the Petitioners was made out, and so the order of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge was not in accordance with law. In support of his contention he relied on Jagdish Sao Vs. The State of Bihar Krishna Trading Co. and Others Vs. State of Bihar, and Bhagwati Saran and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. S.K. Das learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the charge-sheet, F.I.R. documents and the police case diary which were the result of the-investigation had been submitted and on consideration of all these documents the learned Court found that there was prima facie case against the Petitioners and so the order of taking cognizance was legal and proper lie relied upon the decision reported in Satya Narain Musadi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . 4. It is true that there is no statement of facts constituting the offences in the charge-sheet. State of Bihar, . 4. It is true that there is no statement of facts constituting the offences in the charge-sheet. If the charge-sheet alone is taken into consideration no prima facie case could be found out. But the charge-sheet was accompanied with the F.I.R., documents as wen as police case diary. On consideration of the F.I.R. and the materials available from the documents and the case diary there seems to have been a prima facie case against the Petitioners for taking coganizance of offences u/s is 7 and 9 of the Act. The learned Special, Judge at the time of taking cognizance is presumed to have made reference to all these documents and so it cannot be said that the order of taking cognizance was mechanical without application of mind. On the other hand, being supported by material facts, the impugned order of cognizance cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. In this connection, I am tempted to make reference to the decision of Satya Narain Musadi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the report as envisaged by Section 173(2) has to be accompanied as required by Section 173(5) by all the documents and statements of the witness therein mentioned. One cannot divorce the details which the report must contain as required by Section 173(2) from its accompaniments which are required to be submitted u/s 173(5). The whole of it is submitted as a report to the Court. It follows that the Court can look at the report in prescribed form along with its accompaniments for taking cognizance of the offence. 5. In view of the facts of the case and the principle of law referred to above, I am of the opinion that the order of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge is in accordance with law and cannot be disturbed. 6. In the result, the criminal misc. case is dismissed. The lower Court records may be sent back at once.