Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. On 10-6-84 one Shri Raghubansh Narayan Singh, Sangthan Mantri, Colliery Karamchari Sangh, Dakra, submitted a complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Khelari P. S. Ranchi alleging that 35 Wagons of coal was to be loaded in 198 Dn Goods Train from the Goods shed of L. P. Tikmani but only 6 Wagons were loaded on 9-6-1984. The remaining coal was to be loaded on 29 Wagons for transportation but it was not so loaded. It was carried away in the night. The complaint does not disclose what the complainant wanted to convey in his complaint. The complainant says that L. P. Tikmani had received 1250 tonnes of coal but actually 1850 tonnes had been loaded in the goods train. The coal loaded in the break was illegal as no document was prepared for transportation of the coal. No label was pasted on the Wagons. It is further alleged that the coal has been illegally transported with the connivance of C.C.L. The copy of application was forwarded to the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi. 2. The Officer-in-charge, Khelari P. S. registered a case under Section 379 I.P.C. against L. P. Tikmani (Khelari P.S. No. 46/84) and entrusted investigation to Shri P.N. Bhadra. The case was registered on 11-6-1984. The complaint was being investigated by the State Police. The Government of Bihar requested the Central Government that the case to be entrusted for investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short C.B.I.) The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Government of India vide notification No. 228/2/86/AVD II dated 27-7-1987 i.e. three years after the registration of the case, entrusted the investigation of F.I.R. No. 46/84 registered at P. S. Khelari, Distt. Ranchi. The F.I.R. of Khelari P.S. Case No. 46/84 was forwarded to Shri A.P. Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. New Delhi who made endorsement of the facts enumerated in the complaint of Shri Raghubans Narayan Singh, disclosed the offence punishable under Section 379, I. P. C. and he directed that a regular case be registered against the petitioner. Investigation was entrusted to Shri A.P. Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. The order of the Superintendent of Police was communicated to the Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi and other authorities and also the complainant. The C.B.I, took three years to complete the investigation. 3. On 18-12-1990 the Investigating Officer, Shri A.P. Singh, Dy. Investigation was entrusted to Shri A.P. Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. The order of the Superintendent of Police was communicated to the Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi and other authorities and also the complainant. The C.B.I, took three years to complete the investigation. 3. On 18-12-1990 the Investigating Officer, Shri A.P. Singh, Dy. S.P.C.B.I. submitted chargesheet before Shri N. K. Sinha Special Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against seven persons for trial under Section 120-B, r/w 420 and 268 IPC and 3/7 of the E.C. Act, 1955, r/w rule 3(i) of the Punjab Coal (Control) Order 1973. The Special Magistrate on receiving the chargesheet recorded that Investigating Officer had not submitted the case diary along with the charge-sheet which was legally necessary for taking cognizance. No chargesheet had been submitted against C.C.L. and Railway. The Special Magistrate thought a careful perusal in the matter was called for in the interest of justice. The Special Magistrate took cognizance in part and issued summons for appearance of accused persons on 17-1-1991. Probably the Judicial Magistrate thought that the C.B.I, should have submitted chargesheet also against the C.C.L. authorities and the Railway staff and he was disappointed to find that the C B.I. did favour to C.C.L. and Railway authorities. He observed that he will pass order in the matter on perusal of case diary. The petitioner, Manoranjan Prasad who is one of the accused mentioned in the chargesheet against whom cognizance has been taken, moved this Court for quashing the order of the Special Magistrate on 18-12-1990. This matter was argued on several dates. 4. Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the cognizance order was illegal and without jurisdiction. His first objection was that the Special Magistrate took cognizance without any material and for an offence which is triable exclusively by the Special Judge. This fact he submitted demonstrates that the cognizance has been taken in a routine manner without application of judicial mind. The second ground is that the report submitted by the C.B.I. does not disclose the facts constituting the offences alleged and on this ground too the impugned order is bad in law. The C.B.I, submitted chargesheet under the Punjab Coal (Control) Order 1973. The learned counsel submits that Ranchi court has no jurisdiction to try the offences committed in another State. The C.B.I, submitted chargesheet under the Punjab Coal (Control) Order 1973. The learned counsel submits that Ranchi court has no jurisdiction to try the offences committed in another State. The last contention was that even the allegation to be accepted at its face value, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has not referred the evidence collected in the case diary. The learned counsel for the C.B.I., Mr. P.P.N. Roy, referred to the case diary to demonstrate that there was sufficient material for trial of the petitioner and prayer for quashing is misconceived. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner to a great extent justified in criticising the impugned order taking cognizance. The Special Magistrate was right that the diary of the investigation which contains the statement of all the persons prosecution proposes to examine has to be submitted along with the chargesheet and this is clear from Sub-section (6) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate should have called for the case diary. The Magistrate was satisfied that so far the accused persons are concerned there was sufficient ground to take cognizance. He was, however, of the view that of course without looking into the case diary, the C.C.L. and Railway authority have been deliberately left out in the chargesheet. The allegations in the F.I.R. led him to think so. The learned Magistrate should not have been so hasty to form such an uncalled for opinion. He should have satisfied himself after going through the case diary, whether there was evidence also against the Railway and C.C.L. authority. However, the contention of the learned counsel can not be accepted that only because the Magistrate has not examined the case diary, the order of cognizance is open to objection. The chargesheet is comprehensive enough in the case for the Special Magistrate to take cognizance. Shri Dayal submitted that cognizance under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is illegal since no sanction as enjoined by Sub-section (2) of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained. This contention is untenable because sanction is not required if criminal conspiracy to commit an offence is punishable with imprisonment, for a term of two years or upwards as in the instant case. 6. Mr. This contention is untenable because sanction is not required if criminal conspiracy to commit an offence is punishable with imprisonment, for a term of two years or upwards as in the instant case. 6. Mr. Dayal, submitted that the notification dated 12th July 1989 appointing the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to try the offences under Section 7 of the EC. Act is ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act since such offence can be tried only by the Special Judge appointed under the Act. In this connection Sections 12-A and 12-AA of the Act are relevant. Section 12-A empowers the State Government to constitute special courts by notification in the official Gazette. Section 12-AA provides that all the offences under the E. C. Act 1955 shall be tried by the Special court. It is, therefore, obvious that the notification under which the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was appointed Special Magistrate to try offences under the E. C. Act, in respect of the cases investigated by the Delhi Speciai Police Establishment is ultra vires Section 12-AA of the E.C. Act. It is submitted that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate as Special Court because under the proviso to Section 11 Cr.P.C. it is only the State Government who can establish a Special court of Judicial Magistrate who shall try a particular case or particular class of cases. It can not be disputed and it is apparent from Section 11 Cr.P.C. that it is only the State Government who can constitute Special Court with the consultation of High Court. In the instant case the notification appointing Deewakar Singh as Special Court plainly comes under sub-Section (2) of Section 11 which provide that the "Presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court." There is no assertion nor any material to suggest that the State Government had not constituted Special Court under Section 11 Cr.P.C. for trial of offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The petitioner can raise this question before the Special Magistrate. The notification appointing Deewakar Singh as part time Special Judicial Magistrate is however, ultra vires of Section 12 of the E. C. Act. Hence the Special Magistrate can not try offences under Section 7 and 8 of the E. C. Act. 7. Mr. The petitioner can raise this question before the Special Magistrate. The notification appointing Deewakar Singh as part time Special Judicial Magistrate is however, ultra vires of Section 12 of the E. C. Act. Hence the Special Magistrate can not try offences under Section 7 and 8 of the E. C. Act. 7. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the C.B.I, very fairly conceeded that on facts also no offence under the E.G. Act can be said to have been committed. The petitioner can not be tried for offences under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 8. Mr. Dayal, has contended that according to the allegation in the F.I.R. and the chargesheet, no case against the petitioner has been made out. This point can be considered by the Magistrate at the time of framing of the charge. If the petitioner is able to convince from the material of the case diary that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner to attract any other section of Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate is bound to discharge him. Photostat copies of the chargesheot was filed by the petitioner in course of hearing. It is disclosed from the chargesheet that the petitioner and others had entered into a criminal conspiracy at Ranchi and other places during May to July 1984 to cheat the C.C.L. Ranchf and In pursuance thereof they obtained four release orders for release of a total quantity of 2498 M. T. of Slack-coal from C.C.L./N.L. Area/Dakra fraudulently and dishonestly in favour of four fictitious and non-existent firms viz. M/s. Bhrigu Coal Company Gazipur, M/s. Kedar Enterprises, Bahraich, M/s. Nanak Traders, Kanpur and M/s. Amritsar Coal Traders, Amritsar. The release order in favour of accused Tikmani was pursuant to Sponsorship order by the respective District Supply authorities of Gazipur, Kanpur and Bahraich. The accused persons, it is alleged, instead of sending the whole quota after being released, was diverted it to Ludhiana. The coal was actually meant for sale/distribution to the licensed brick-kiln owners located in Amritsar and three other districts of U.P. and disposed of the same at Ludhiana in a clandestine manner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was also a party to the conspiracy. The Investigating officer collected the following materials : "On 14-5-1984, A-4 Shri Manoranjan Prasad presented 3 drafts Nos. 82/B 480450/11/12 to 82/B 480542/11/14, dated 12-5-1984 for amounts totalling Rs. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was also a party to the conspiracy. The Investigating officer collected the following materials : "On 14-5-1984, A-4 Shri Manoranjan Prasad presented 3 drafts Nos. 82/B 480450/11/12 to 82/B 480542/11/14, dated 12-5-1984 for amounts totalling Rs. 2,09,076/- out of the above mentioned 5 drafts along with 3 applications under his signature at the C.C.L. Hqrs./Ranchi for issue of the aforesaid release orders in favour of M/s. Kedar Enterprises/Bahraich, M/s. Bhrigu Coal Company, Gazipur and M/s. Nanak Traders, Kanpur. On receipt of the above 3 drafts and applications, the C CL. Hqrs/Ranchi issued the aforesaid 3 release orders bearing Nos. UP/353, UP/354 and UP/355 dated 15-5-1984 in favour of the aforesaid 3 firms for release of 429 MT, 420MT 380 MT of slack coal from C.C.L./NK Area/Dakra. On 15-5-1984, Sri Manoranjan Prasad collected the above 3 release orders. The hand writing experts confirmed his signature on the same." 9. In my opinion, it is not the stage to meticulously examine the evidence to arrive at a decision as to whether any case has been made against the petitioner or not. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent power of this Court on account of total absence of any material against the petitioner. Mr. P. P N. Roy has referred to several materials other than referred in the case diary. In my opinion, it is not one of the rare cases in which inherent power ought to be exercised to quash the trial or order of cognizance. The petitioner is at liberty to apply before the Magistrate for his discharge. 10. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. 11. The order of stay of further proceeding is vacated. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to the Joint Registrar of this Court.