JUDGMENT Ram Prakash Gupta, J. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is present. None for the State is present. Affidavit of Service has been filed. 2. Heard, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The revision is directed against an order dated 2 .9.89 passed by the Judge, Special Court, E C. Act, Murshidabad in a prosecution launched by the State to prosecute the petitioner for offences under section 7(1)(a) (ii), Essential Commodities Act for violation of: (i) Para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices Order, 1977. (ii) Section 8 of the West Bengal Anti Profiteering Act. (iii) Para 4(i) of the West Bengal Essential Food Stuffs Anti Hoarding Orders, 1966 (vi) Para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealer Licensing) Order, 1978. (v) Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC i.e. keeping adulterated food or drink intended for sale so as to make the same noxious and selling food or drink knowing the same to be noxious respectively. 3. The learned Special Judge issued notice under section 251 Cr. P C. in respect of accusations raised by the police. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. It is noticed according to the allegations as brought out in the revision petition, that the officers of the District Enforcement Branch, Kandi made a surprise visit on the grocery shop of the petitioner at Balia within the police station of Jhargram. On checking it was found that the petitioner possessing sale 20 tins mustard oil, one bag of Musur dal containing 100 kgs. three bags of mustard oil cake weighing 222 kgs nearly, two bags of Kesri dal weighing 190 kgs, 21/2 bags of sugar. weighing 240 kgs and one bag of rice containing 100 kgs. No board declaring the stock was found in the shop-cum-godown of the petitioner and the petitioner failed to produce licence or stock register, sale register, cash memos, accounts and vouchers for the sale and purchase of the commodities. So the police officers seized the entire stock. He took a sample of 250 gms. of the mustard oil out of the 22 tins which was suspected to be adulterated for the purpose of expert's examination.. It was found adulterated. The articles were given in the jimma of the petitioner. The police sent up a report under section 173 Cr. P.C. for trial of the petitioner for the aforementioned offences 5. of the mustard oil out of the 22 tins which was suspected to be adulterated for the purpose of expert's examination.. It was found adulterated. The articles were given in the jimma of the petitioner. The police sent up a report under section 173 Cr. P.C. for trial of the petitioner for the aforementioned offences 5. It is alleged that on 18th August, 1989 the petitioner applied to the Special Court for supply of copy of the analyst's report and for production of the sample in three parts, for exercise of a right under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he filed another application dated 28th September, 1989 for warranty and for impleading the owner of the mustard oil factory as an accused on the plea that the petitioner was bonafide purchaser. However, by the impugned order dated 28th September, 1989 the Learned Special Judge rejected both the applications holding that the prayers would be considered in due course. 6. The petitioner asserts that he was entitled to have a sample of the oil sent for fresh examination by expert as provided under section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act as the offences under section 272/273 IPC are parallel to those made punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and so the safeguards as provided in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be taken away from him merely because the prosecution chooses to prosecute him for offences under section 272 and 273 IPC and to bye-pass the provision of sections 16 and 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is also asserted that there is no violation of any provision of West Bengal (Pulses, Edible Oil-Seeds and Edible Oil) Order, 978 or other alleged offences. And that the Ld. Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act could not try the offences u/s. 272 and 273 of the IPC 7. After considering the assertions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioners and on perusing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, particularly section 13 thereof as well as the provisions of IPC, I am of the opinion that the trial of offences under sections 272 and 273 of IPC is on a different footing from offences punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of P.F.A. Act. Counsel for petitioners and on perusing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, particularly section 13 thereof as well as the provisions of IPC, I am of the opinion that the trial of offences under sections 272 and 273 of IPC is on a different footing from offences punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of P.F.A. Act. So the procedure of safeguards provided u/s 13 (2) of P.F.A. Act, cannot be attracted for trial of offences u/s. 272 and 273 IPC. The type of adulteration mentioned in sections of 272 and 273 IPC is such that it is injurious to health or noxious in nature. Non-confirmation to prescribed standard of food, as per rules promulgated under P.F.A. Rule" would be an offence under P F.A Act; not so under Sections 272 and 273 IPC. 8. The provisions of sections 272 and 273 IPC did not become redundant by passing of P.F.A. Act. The procedure of provisions of section 13 (2) P.F.A. Act cannot be introduced by necessary implication also, in trials for offences u/s 272/278 IPC which has to be as per Cr.P.C. The punishment for these IPC provisions is different from provisions of PFA Act. No Authority, by way of precedent has been cited that section 13(2) P.F.A Act gets attracted to trial for offences u/s 272 and 273 I.P.C. So the ordinary procedure presceribed under Cr. P.C. is the requirement for trial offences under these provisions of I.P.C. Thus, the assertion of Counsel for petitioner that he has a right to refer to Director CFL, a sample under section 13(2) P.F.A. Act in the manner prescribed therein for the present offence, cannot be accepted. The Ld. Special Judge has already observed that the copies of the report will have to be supplied at proper stage, but section 13 (2) of PFA Act is not attracted. This, in my view, is the right approach. If at defence stage, by way of defence, the accused applies for such opinion of Director CFL ; the trial courts will be justified in considering that prayer on its merits. 9. However, one more aspect of the matter as argued by Counsel for petitioner is whether offences under these two sections of IPC can be tried jointly with the offences under section 7, Essential Commodities Act before a Judge, Special Court. 9. However, one more aspect of the matter as argued by Counsel for petitioner is whether offences under these two sections of IPC can be tried jointly with the offences under section 7, Essential Commodities Act before a Judge, Special Court. Section 12AA E C. Act provides that all the offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code, as far as may be, applied to such trial. 10. Section 12AA (2) of this Act lays down that when trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Court, be charged at the same trial; provided that such other offence under any other law for the time being in force, is triable in a summary way; provided further that in the case of any conviction for such other offence, in such trial, it shall not be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding the term provided for conviction in a summary trial under such other law. 11. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner has brought to my notice a West Bengal Amendment to sections 272 and 273 IPC vide West Bengal Act No.42 of 1973, whereby the punishment for these offences in this State has been enhanced to life imprisonment with or without fine 12 The punishment provided in the IPC., without the aforementioned amendments, is only six months imprisonment. So the offence, read with the amendment, cannot be tried summarily by Judge, Special Court. In such a situation, these two offences cannot be tried with an offence under Essential Commodities Act jointly as the necessary condition u/s. 12AA is that such offence should be triable under summary procedure. It appears that the West Bengal Amendment to sections 272 and 273, IPC has been overlooked. If these offences are disclosed prima facie, the necessary procedure of trial before a Sessions Court after commitment of the case by a Magistrate, has to be followed So, for these offences, instead of trial before the Special Court, a fresh police report can be tiled before a Magistrate who may commit to sessions if an offence of such nature is disclosed. 13. 13. Coming to the consideration of other offences alleged in the police report a perusal of Para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oils, Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealer Licensing) Order, 1978 shows that in order to attract contravention of this rule, there should be stock of pulses exceeding 10 quintals or stock of edib1e oils exceeding 5 quintals or stock of oil seeds exceeding 30 quintals and further condition is that he does not have the licence from the licensing authority. In the present case, the quantities of pulses or oil seeds or edible oil were much less. So, there is no contravention of this Order. 14. Taking the section 8 of West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, since the accused had not submitted to the authorised Officers, returns of stocks of scheduled articles, that is• pulses, edible oils, he being a dealer in scheduled goods, prima facie he would be triable for contravention of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. 15. Since no stocks were displayed outside the place of business of the accused in respect of pulses, edible oils, there would be prima facie contravention of Para 3 of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977. 16. Now, I take up Para 4 of the West Bengal Essential Food Stuff Anti Hoarding Order, 1966. It prohibits any person to have in his possession or under his control any quantity of essential food stuffs in any area in which this order is a force except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the prescribed Officer. The only exception is that persons holding family identity card or ration card can keep in their possession specified quantities of rice and wheat up to 20 kilogram each for those above eight years of age and 10 kilogram each for those aged eight years or less. So, contravention of this order will be attracted, prima facie, as the accused is alleged not to be having any such licence. Another Order related relied upon by prosecution as having been contravened, is Para 3 of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order. So, contravention of this order will be attracted, prima facie, as the accused is alleged not to be having any such licence. Another Order related relied upon by prosecution as having been contravened, is Para 3 of West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order. It provides that every wholeseller and every retailer shall display conspicuously at a place as near to the entrance of his place of business as possible, a list in Form B, indicating the opening stock and the wholesale price as the case may be, of each essential commodity each day. Rice, pulses, edible oils are also essential commodities within the scope of this Order. No such list was displayed in this case. So, prima facie, this Order is also attracted as violated. 17. The net result of my discussion above, on the basis of allegations of the prosecution and the material on record and the law applicable, is that so far as offences under Sections 272 and 273 I. P. C. are concerned, they cannot be tried in this case by the Judge. Special Court under E.C.A. But if the State so desires, a regular prosecution may be launched, subject to all defences available to the accused. I further find that the offence under West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Dealer Licensing) Order 1978 is not made out even prima facie. So the petitioner-accused cannot be tried for contravention of that Order in the present case. The prosecution can continue with the trial of other offences as contraventions of other Orders as noted above. Whatever I have observed, regarding the contravention of referred Orders, is without prejudice to what the parties, may prove' during trial and without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner-accused on merits of the case. Copy to the Special Judge concerned, expeditiously proceeding with the trial. The revisional application disposed of. Direction given.