JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 30.1.1986 of Shri C.R. Pal, Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, taking cognisance against the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for having violated Clause 10 of the Orissa Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. 2. The facts giving rise to the revision may be briefly stated as follows: On 31.7.85 Shri S.N. Panda, Inspector of Supplies, Berhampur, along with the Executive Magistrate and other officials of the Supply Department visited the shop named "Satya Store" situated at Lanjipalli and checked the stock of sugar and the accounts of the said shop, which stands in the name of the Petitioner, and found that the physical stock of sugar tallied with the book balance, but on verification of the said register of sugar and the ration cards, they detected some discrepancies therein. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Shri S.N. Panda, Inspector of Supplies, Berhampur, G.R. Case No. 736 of 1985 was registered against the Petitioner and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite party No. 2 only u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. After the charge-sheet was filed, the learned Special Judge considering the facts that the licence of dealership was issued in the name of Manorama Sabat (Petitioner) and that she is the owner of the shop, took cognizance against the Petitioner also u/s 7 of the Act and directed the issue of summons to her fixing 28.2.86 for her appearance. Being aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner prefers the present revision. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that as the charge-sheet was not filed showing the Petitioner also as an accused the learned Special Judge acted illegally in taking cognizance against the Petitioner also by passing the impugned order, as, according to him, Section 11 of the Act prohibits the taking of such cognizance against the Petitioner. The relevant portion of Section 11 of the Act is quoted below: Cognizance of offences-No court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.... In this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision Jagdish Sao Vs. In this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision Jagdish Sao Vs. The State of Bihar, and other decisions of the Patna High Court. 4. In Jagdish Sao's case (supra), while quashing the proceedings taken against the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Act, his Lordship was pleased to observe thus: ...Applying the principles, discussed above, to the facts of this case, I feel satisfied that the recitals made in the charge-sheet referred to above, do not disclose the material facts affording a basis which could enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case against the Petitioner. x x x x For all the reasons discussed above, I feel satisfied that it is a fit case on its own special facts to set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, taking cognizance against the Petitioner, and for the same reason it must be held that the prosecution of the Petitioner, in the circumstances, is illegal and fit to be quashed. In that case as the particulars of the facts stated in the charge-sheet did not constitute any offence, it was held that the taking of cognisance against the Petitioner was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In the case of Surja Narain Panjiar and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1977 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 140 (Pat.), the police after the investigation, submitted the final form to the Court saying that no prima facie Case was made out and in that context it was held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of an offence u/s 7 of the Act, disagreeing with the report of the police, in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In Lakhan Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar the principle enunciated in Jagdish Sao's case (supra) is reiterated, that a written report submitted by the public servant u/s 11 of the Act must contain the facts constituting the offence and if that provision of Section 11 of the Act is not complied with the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. The above decisions of the Patna High Court do not apply to the facts of the present case. The above decisions of the Patna High Court do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the above referred cases of the Patna High Court, the written report submitted by the public servant concerned did not disclose the existence of facts constituting an offence u/s 7 of the Act and hence no cognizance of any offence could be taken in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. 5. In the present case, admittedly the report submitted by the public servant concerned did disclose an offence under the Act. Even the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the legality of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge against the opposite party No. 2. In the facts of the present case, the taking of cognizance by the Special Judge of an offence u/s 7 of the Act against the opposite party No. 2 is in accordance with Section 11 of the Act. What is prohibited u/s 11 is taking of cognizance without a written report from a public servant containing facts constituting the offence. So once the written report submitted by the public servant contains facts constituting an offence u/s 7 of the Act, the Special Judge is entitled to take cognizance of the offence. 6. The meaning of the expression "to take cognizance" has been clearly explained by the Supreme Court in Raghubans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar in the following words: ...In our opinion, once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. As pointed out by this Court in Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the term 'complaint' would include allegations made against persons unknown. If a Magistrate takes cognizance u/s 190(1)(a) on the basis of a complaint of facts he would take cognizance and a proceeding would be instituted even though persons who had committed the offence were not known at the time. State of Andhra Pradesh the term 'complaint' would include allegations made against persons unknown. If a Magistrate takes cognizance u/s 190(1)(a) on the basis of a complaint of facts he would take cognizance and a proceeding would be instituted even though persons who had committed the offence were not known at the time. The same position prevails, in our view u/s 190(1)(b). Mr. Sachthey, the learned Counsel for the Respondent brought to our notice some decisions which have taken the same view. The Calcutta High Court in Saifar and Others Vs. State of West Bengal following the Full Bench decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Sind, in Mehrab v. Emperor AIR 1924 Sind 71, held that when a Magistrate taken cognisance u/s 190(1)(b) on a police report he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of the particular persons named in the charge sheet, and therefore, the Magistrate is entitled to summon additional accused against whom he considers that there was good evidence, after perusal of the statements recorded by the police u/s 161 and the other documents referred to in Section 173 even without examination of witnesses in Court. Relying on the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court, I hold that when the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence u/s 7 of the Act, he committed no illegality in passing in impugned order summoning the Petitioner also as a co-accused in the case as she is admittedly the owner of the shop and having registered dealership for the sale of sugar. Hence I find that in passing the impugned order making the Petitioner also an accused in the case the learned Special Judge has not committed any such illegality so as to justify interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this case and it is accordingly dismissed. The lower court record be sent forthwith to the trial court. As this is a case of the year 1985, the same may be disposed of at an early date. Final Result : Dismissed