JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The order of cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate on 9-5-1985 is being challenged on the ground that the Magistrate is not the "Special Court" within the meaning of Section 12AA (1) (e) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, and, therefore, has no jurisdiction to take cognisance. 2. The short question for consideration is whether Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act continues to remain in force conferring jurisdiction on the Magistrate to take cognisance for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act notwithstanding the special provisions contained in the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Provisions Act"). Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act provided .. No Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the fact constituting such offence made by a person who is a public .servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." In order to deal with the problem of hoarding, black-marketing etcetera in respect of essential commodities more effectively, the Parliament enacted the Special Provisions Act and the said Act came into force on 2-9-1981 making it operative for a period of five years. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the said Special Provisions Act provided that the Act shall cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of its commencement. Section 2 provided . .. During the continuance in force of this Act, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in Sections 3 to 11." By Section 11, Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act was substituted and Section 12-AA, a new provision was added. u/s 12-AA (1) (a) of the Special Provisions Act- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). (a) All offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the defence 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. (a) All offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the defence 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. There is no dispute that Special Courts have been constituted by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 12-A, as amended by the Special Provisions Act -by Notification dated 25th of September, 1982. u/s 12-AA (1) (e). (e) a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognisance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. It is not necessary to discuss the other provisions of the Special Provisions Act. 3. In view of the aforesaid specific provision. contained in Section 12-AA (1) (e) of the Special Provisions Act, the question for consideration is whether the jurisdiction to take cognisance in respect of an offence committed under the provisions of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act remains with the Magistrate or not. There is no dispute In the present case that a Special Court has been constituted in respect of the area where the present offence has been committed. In view of the special provisions made by the Parliament providing for Special Courts to try the offence in question and providing for a special procedure therein and further in view of the language of Section 12- AA (1) (e) that offences shall be triable only by the Special, Court, it must be held that so long as the Special Provisions Act remains in force, the field of taking .cognisance and trial, as provided in Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be taken recourse to. In other words, during the subsistence of the Special provisions Act cognisance can be taken only on a police report u/s 12-AA (1) (e) and not otherwise. This conclusion of mine is supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of In Re: Satsih Chandra De as well as by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma and Sons. Vs. State of Rajasthan. This conclusion of mine is supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of In Re: Satsih Chandra De as well as by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma and Sons. Vs. State of Rajasthan. The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case, referred to supra, has held that provisions of Section 12-AA (1) (e) are mandatory in nature and are having overriding effect over Section 11 to achieve the object laid down in the Special Provisions Act. The learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the other decision, rdened to supra. also held: ... Considering these aspects of the matter and the objects and reasons behind the Amending Act, I am of the opinion that so long as the said Act, which is a temporary one operates in the field Section 11 cannot be taken recourse to, to prosecute a person accused of an offence under the Act. That is to say, during the subsistence of the Amending Act cognizance can be taken only on Police Report u/s 12-AA (1) (e) and not otherwise... In this view of the matter, the impugned order of cognisance passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed