JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order· dated 10.1.1992, passed by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Jabalpur, in Special criminal Case No. 5 of 1989. The facts in short are that on 30.5.89, Shri D.S. Vyas, Assistant Food Officer, filed a complaint against the applicant before the Court of Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Jabalpur, for offence under section 3/7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On being summoned, the applicant-accused raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint under section 12AA (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, 1981, to the effect that the said Assistant Food Officer was not authorised by the State Government to file the complaint. But the learned Special Judge, without hearing the counsel for the accused/applicant, has passed the impugned order rejecting his objections. Against this order, the applicant has filed the present revision petition, and this Court on 25.11.92 has ordered stay of further proceedings. The case was partly heard on 10.1.94 and the learned counsel for the State was granted time to produce a letter of authority in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel for the non-applicant State submits that the-complaint so filed by the Assistant Food Officer was an infringement of the provisions of sections 3, 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and so also the conditions under sections 3 (1), 8 and 11 of the M.P. Food-grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1965. The learned counsel submits that as per provisions of section 21 Clause Eighth, I.P.C., that said 'Assistant Food Officer is a public servant and as per Notification No. 2030-2517-30 dated 3.12.65 under the Food-grains Dealers' Licensing Order, along with other authorities given thereunder, is authorised to file the complaint As such, even according to section 12AA (1) (a) of the said Act, the complaint filed against the applicant is by a competent authority who is a person authorised to do so and, therefore, the lower Court was right in taking cognizance. . In view of this, the findings arrived at by the Special Judge, Jabalpur, under the impugned order dated 10.1.92 to the effect that the complaint lodged by the said Assistant Food Officer is by a public servant and the said complaint is also lodged in public capacity, are upheld. This revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.