Judgment Mrs. Khastgir, J. 1. This is an application under s. 401 read with s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On an inspection held in the shop of the petitioner on 26th June 1986 by Sri M. C. Sinha, Inspector of Police. Enforcement Branch, West Bengal. excess stock of 3630 kilos of soft coke was detected. The petitioner, it is alleged, failed to display the Stock• cum-Rate Board nor could produce the Cash Memo Book, Trade Licence etc during the course of such inspection. As a result Ghatal Police Station case no.7 dated 26686 under S. 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 was initiated against the petitioner for alleged violation of paragraph 12(b), 12(2), 14(c) and 17 of the West Bengal Soft Coke Licensing Order, 1965 and paragraph 3(a) of the West Bengal Soft Coke Retail Price Control Order 1980 and paragraph 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1977. 2. After the investigation was complete the Investigating Officer submitted a report in final form praying for discharge of the petitioner from the instant case on the ground that the charge under s.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act has not been established against the petitioner. 3. Sri A. K Chatterjee, learned Judge, Special Court Midnapore (E C Act) on perusing the said final report and on hearing the parties, by his order dated 15th March, 1990 was pleased to find that there was prima facie case against the petitioner and he took cognizance of the case. Being aggrieved thereby the present application has been taken out by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order and making the rule absolute. 4. Mr. Amit Talukdar learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once such final report has been filed by the police the learned Judge concerned neither under s. 11 nor under s. 12(b) of the Act had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Section 11 of the Act provides "No Court shall take cognizance 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 s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 11 of the Act provides "No Court shall take cognizance 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 s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances he submitted that in view of the final report filed by the public servant that is the officer concerned here in the instant case, that no case has been made out against the petitioner, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to ignore the said report and come to its own finding and take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. In support of his contention Mr. Amit Talukdar learned Advocate relied upon a Division Bench decision of this High Court reported in 1984J) Calcutta High Court Notes page 74. There the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice P.C. Borooah sitting with Mr. Justice A.M. Pal held that after the police had submitted a Final Report in the case, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to direct the taking of evidence But to our view the said judgment of the Division Bench has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as it appear from the said judgment that Sri B. N Chakraborty, Judge, Special Court Howrah by an order decided to take evidence to determine the issues raised holding that the police should not have submitted a Pinal Report in that case. Against that order an application was taken nut and the learned Division Bench allowed the said application by quashing the impugned order. To our mind, that decision has no application and can be factually distinguished inasmuch as in the instant case the learned Special Court has not directed to take fresh evidence to determine as to whether the offence has been committed by the petitioner and cognizance could he taken thereof or not. In the instant case that situation has not arisen. Under the circumstances the decision reported in Calcutta High Court Notes, 1984 Vol. 1 and 2 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Talukdar further referred to a case reported in 1984 Part 11 Criminal Law Journal at page 1532 where the question which fell for consideration before Mr. Under the circumstances the decision reported in Calcutta High Court Notes, 1984 Vol. 1 and 2 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Talukdar further referred to a case reported in 1984 Part 11 Criminal Law Journal at page 1532 where the question which fell for consideration before Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee was the provision of s. 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. There in connection with the violation of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, a complaint was filed before the Court. Such complaint was filed by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies and not by the police officer. Under those circumstances, the learned Judge was of the view that the Special Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence. The learned Judge was of the view that during the subsistence of the Amending Act cognizance can be taken only on Police report under s. I2AA(I)(e) and not otherwise. Secondly where a complaint was flied by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies for violation of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968 before the Special Judge the Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance of the said offence in view of the fact that s. 11 of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under that 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 s.21 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances the learned Judge was of the view that the cognizance could only he taken on police report and not otherwise. In our view such a finding of Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee in the case referred to above has no application in the fact of this case inasmuch there the learned Judge expressed his view that the cognizance of the offence can only be taken on the police report and not otherwise inasmuch as in that case the complaint was, filed before the Special Court by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies and not by the police officer. In the instant case such is not the case inasmuch as the complaint has been filed by the police officer. Under the circumstances, undoubtedly the Special Court has jurisdiction to take evidence based on such complaint filed by the police officer. In the instant case such is not the case inasmuch as the complaint has been filed by the police officer. Under the circumstances, undoubtedly the Special Court has jurisdiction to take evidence based on such complaint filed by the police officer. Here the question that has arisen for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate was bound by the final report filed by the police and not confined to the facts a, disclosed in the complaint. If we read s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act the plain reading of the section indicates that the Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act where on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person. Under the circumstances to our view, the learned Magistrates power is not only confined to the police report alone filed by the concerned police officer but also to the complaint disclosing the facts which constitute such an offence. Under the circumstances, to our mind in view of the specific provision as made in s. 11 the Court had ample jurisdiction to consider the facts constituting such offence. Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined not to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Mr. Talukdar learned Advocate has referred to another single Bench decision or the Patna High Court reported in 1980 Criminal Law Journal at page 537. Such judgment is not binding on this Court as this Court is not in agreement with of the views expressed by the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court. The learned Court below in the impugned order has referred to the various submissions made by the learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner as also of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. In the case reported in AIR 1980 Criminal Law Journal page 227 the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act the Court can look into a report under s. 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as its accompaniments for taking cognizance of the offence. The learned Court is entitled to consider the police report in its entirety. Under s. 173(2) such report has to be accompanied by all the documents and statements of the witnesses mentioned therein. The learned Court is entitled to consider the police report in its entirety. Under s. 173(2) such report has to be accompanied by all the documents and statements of the witnesses mentioned therein. One cannot divorce the details from the report without considering its accompaniments the whole of it has to be considered as a report to Court. The learned Court below under the circumstances was entitled to look into the statements and/or other materials for the purpose of consideration of the charges as alleged in the complaint. Under those circumstances this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. As a result this application is rejected. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from taking such steps as he is entitled to if he is aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the learned Court below. This Court while considering the petition of the petitioner has not applied its mind to the merits of the case and as a result has not observed anything with regard thereto. Haridas Das, J. I agree. Application rejected.