Order The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.C.No.57of 1983 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, which on transfer, on the point of jurisdiction, has been taken on file as Calendar Case No. 187 of 1989 by the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi (Initially taken cognizance as S.T.C. 585 of 1982 by J.F.C.M.Devokottai. The allegation against the petitioner levelled by the respondent Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Madurai, is that when he inspected the T.V.S.S.K. Grocery Shop at No.6, Kallukatti East Street, Karaikudi Town on 28.3.1982 at 9.30 a.m. he found the petitioner present in the shop, transacting business, keeping essential commodities such as soaps, ten pockets etc. The petitioner had failed to display at or near the entrance of that business premises information regarding the stock position, purchase rate a nd selling prices of essential commodities. No stock register had been maintained for the stocks of essential commodities. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted under Clauses 3(1) and 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Slocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977 read with Secs.3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. It is the further case of the prosecution that though there was a board hung in the shop showing “Sunday holiday” business was transacted by the petitioner and customers were buying articles. The Additional Collector of Ramanathapuram in his proceedings Roc F. 2/83330/82, dated 22.7.1982 accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for violations aforementioned. 2. In this petition filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. the prayer is to call for the records and quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.187 of 1989 now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi (formerly S.T.C.No.57 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court. 3. Before adverting to the contentions urged before me by Thiru K.AIagumalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is better to record some relevant dates. The violation is stated to have been committed on 28.3.1982. The charge sheet dated 11.8.1982 Was received by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai on 6th September, 1982. The sanction to prosecute the petitioner was accorded on 22.7.1982. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, took cognizance of the offence on 4.10.1982 and the case was numbered as S.T.C.No.585 of 1982. The violation is stated to have been committed on 28.3.1982. The charge sheet dated 11.8.1982 Was received by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai on 6th September, 1982. The sanction to prosecute the petitioner was accorded on 22.7.1982. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, took cognizance of the offence on 4.10.1982 and the case was numbered as S.T.C.No.585 of 1982. It is this summary trial which later, was re-numbered as S.T.C.No.57 of 1983 and against in 1989 as Calendar Case No.187 of 1989. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (18 of 1981), dated 2nd September, 1981, came into force with effect from 1st September, 1982. 4. Four contentions were urged before me to quash the pending proceedings: (1) Cognizance of offences on 4.10.1982, after the coming into force on 1.9.1982 of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, was illegal. Sec.12-A of the Special Provisions Act provides for constitution of special courts for speedy trial of the offences under the Act. Under Sec.12-AA of the said Act, all the offences under the said Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which offences have been committed. On this sole ground, the proceedings now pending are liable to quashed, in view of the illegality in taking cognizance; (2) By G.O.Ms.No.34, Food, dated 8th February, 1977, The Governor of Tamil Nadu had made, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977 in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 114 of the Defence and Internal Security of Indian Rules, 1971, which order had not been repealed. This prosecution cannot be maintained, since the Order had not been made under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; (3) Sanction for prosecution had been accorded by the Additional Collector of Ramanathapuram, who had no jurisdiction under Clause 9 of the order dated 8th February, 1977, since the provisions contemplated sanction by the Collector of the District and not by the Additional Collector. As a corollary to this argument, it was submitted that even if Additional Collectors had been later on authorised to sanction prosecution, prior concurrence from the Central Government must have been obtained for such inclusion of the Additional Collector, the failure of which would make the sanction invalid. As a corollary to this argument, it was submitted that even if Additional Collectors had been later on authorised to sanction prosecution, prior concurrence from the Central Government must have been obtained for such inclusion of the Additional Collector, the failure of which would make the sanction invalid. On the issue of sanction, it was also argued that it was doubtful whether the sanction to prosecute was available before the Magistrate when the charge sheet was filed; and (4) The offence being more than 8 years old, apart from its being petty and technical, the continuance of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and, therefore, deserved termination. 5. I have heard Mr.G.Krishnamurthi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent, on all these contentions. 6. Contention No.1: I am unable to hold that the cognizance taken is illegal. The Judicial First Class Magistrate had taken cognizance on 4.10.1982 and directed issue of summons to the petitioner. It is true that the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 came into force on 1.9.1982 and only there after cognizance had been taken. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 contains 11 sections. Sec.2 of the Special Provision's Act is very significant to decide the first question. Sec.2 read thus: 2. Act 10 of 1955to have effect subject to certain special provisions for a temporary period: 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 Sec.3 to11 : Provided that the amendments specified in Secs.7 to 11 shall not apply to, or in relation to, any offence under the Principal Act committed before the commencement of this Act and the provisions of the principal Act shall apply to, and in relation to such offences as if those amendments had not been made.” We are now concerned with Sec. 11 of the Special Provisions Act by which special Courts have been constituted and provisions have been made for offences under the Act being tried by the Special Court. Sec.ll also provides for appeal and revision as well as the application of Crl.P.C. to proceedings before a Spedal Court. Sec.2 of the Special Provisions Act, thus makes a clear provision as to the manner in which an offence under Sec.7 of the Act shall be tried. Sec.ll also provides for appeal and revision as well as the application of Crl.P.C. to proceedings before a Spedal Court. Sec.2 of the Special Provisions Act, thus makes a clear provision as to the manner in which an offence under Sec.7 of the Act shall be tried. In respect of offences committed prior to the coming into force of the Act 18 of 1981, amendments specified in Secs.7 to11 which include Sec. 12-AA shall not be applicable. Therefore, offences committed prior to coming into force of the Act 18 of 1981, the Judicial Magistrate of the First class shall try the offences as provided under Sec.12-A of the Principle Act, prior to the deletion, treating as if the section had not been deleted. The amendments specified in Secs.7 to11 shall be applicable only in respect of offences committed after coming into force of Act 18 of 1981. The offence in the present case was committed on 28.3.1982 long before Act 18 of 1981 came into force. Therefore, the legal position is that the offence in this case shall be tried according to the provisions, which were in existence prior to the amendments specified in Secs.7 to 11 in Act 18 of 1981, as if the amendments specified therein had not been made. The first ground of challenge has, therefore, to be necessarily negatived. 7. Contention No.2: It is true that by G.O.Ms.No.34, Food, dated 8th February, 1977, the Governor of Tamil Nadu had made the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Disiplay of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977 in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 114 of the Defence and Internal Security of Indian Rules, 1971 with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, but is was so made during emergency. The said order, Consequent to the revocation of emergency, was repealed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 22.9.1977. On 23.9.1977 the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts Order, 1977 was passed in G.O.Rt.No.316. This order came into force on 23.9.1977. This order was passed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government and therefore, the second content ion has to be rejected. 8. Contention No.3: This contention presents no difficulty whatsoever. This order came into force on 23.9.1977. This order was passed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government and therefore, the second content ion has to be rejected. 8. Contention No.3: This contention presents no difficulty whatsoever. It is true that the 1977 Order made by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 8th February, 1977, by virtue of clause 9 thereof provided that no prosecution for contravention of any of the provisions of that order shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Collector of the District concerned elsewhere except City of Madras and Belt area comprising Saidapet Taluk and Avadi Township of Sriperumbudur Taluk for which areas the Joint Commissioner of Civil Supplies was the competent authority to accord sanction. This order had been repealed on 22.9.1977 and the 1977 Order made under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act had come into force on 23.9.1977. Even in the order passed on 23.9.1977, clause 9 has a similar provision investing powers with the Collector of the District concerned elsewhere to accord sanction for prosecution. However, by G.O.Ms.No.263, dated 16.10.1979, the powers to sanction prosecution was conferred on the Collectors of the District concerned or the Additional Collector of District or District Revenue-Officer. This amendment to clause 9 of the order was brought into force with the prior concurrence of the Central Government and, therefore, from 16.10.1979, the Additional Collector of the District concerned was authorised to accord sanction. Hence the sanction order, dated 22.7.1982 accorded by the Additional Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai to prosecute the petitioner is perfectly in consonance with law. The sanction to prosecute had been received by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai on 6th September, 1982 and cognizance had been taken only on 4.10.1982.I, therefore, find no substance in this contention, which also fails. 9. The sanction to prosecute had been received by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai on 6th September, 1982 and cognizance had been taken only on 4.10.1982.I, therefore, find no substance in this contention, which also fails. 9. Contention No.4: For this proposition, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raksh Saxena v. State Raksh Saxena v. State, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 740 where the Supreme Court, under Art. 134 of the Constitution of India, while considering quashing of a prosecution against the accused, who was not an officer, but merely a trader in the Foreign Exchange Division of the Bank, taking note of the fact that the offence was more than six years old and chances of conviction were extremely doubtful, held that continuance of prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The Court also opined that the trial was bound to occupy not less than 2 or 3 years in the Court of first instance in view of the complicated nature of the case. The observations of the Supreme Court, to my mind will have to be restricted the facts of that case. The offence alleged, though simple, the purpose for which the Essential Commodities Act was promulgated cannot be lost sight of. The avowed object was to control the production, supply and distribution of trade and commence in certain commodities and stringently punish the infraction of its provisions. It would also appear that in view of the objects envisaged by the legislature not having been wholly achieved, further amendments were enacted. The amendments were introduced, since experience had shown that some of the existing provisions of that Act had not been adequate and effective for ensuring the availability of Essential Commodities Act fair prices and for curbing, hoarding and black-marketing of and profiteering in such commodities. The petitioner is staled to have transacted business on a holiday. The trial in the court of the first instance cannot take a long time. The delay that had occasioned, to a very great extent, is due to the petitioner himself. I do not think that on the facts of this case, on this ground, the pending prosecution could not be quashed. In view of the factual position of the various orders detailed earlier, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner can have no bearing to the issue involved in this case. I do not think that on the facts of this case, on this ground, the pending prosecution could not be quashed. In view of the factual position of the various orders detailed earlier, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner can have no bearing to the issue involved in this case. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed. B.S.-----Petition dismissed.