Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has arisen out of the order dated 6-2-1989 passed by the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act) at Jamshedpur in Mango P. S. Case No. 139/88, taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The facts of the case run in a very narrow compass. One C. P.Choudhary, District Manager of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation made a written report to Mango Police Station on the allegation that on 27-9-1988 at about 5.25 p.m. in the evening, 120 bags of wheat were despatched to B.S.F.C. Musabani godown through truck No. BHR 8815. On 28-9-1988 on an enquiry from Musabani it was found that the truck had not reached there. The informant came to know from Mango Police Station itself to the effect that on 28-9-1988 while bags of wheat were being unloaded at the godown of Neki Seth, same was seized by police and on 30-9-1988 he came to know that as wheat in question belongs to B.S.F.C. and as such action was necessary to be taken by the B.S.F.C. It was further alleged that the wheat in question was received by one Ohrub Singh, authorised representative of Bijay Bahadur Singh, agent of the Transporting and Handling agents, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association instead of getting the wheat delivered at Musabani godown on 28-9-1988. The truck was seized by the police and prosecution was lodged against the transporting-cum-handling agent, his autho rised representative Dhrub Singh, truck owner and the truck driver. On the basis of the written report, Mango P. S. Case No. 139/88 was registered and investigation was taken up. Ultimately, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Section 406/407/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. On the basis of the charge-sheet, by the impugned order dated 6-2-1989, the learned Special Judge, (E C. Act), Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/407/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The assailing grounds of the order of cognizance is two-fold, as submitted by Mr. S. L. Agrawal, counsel appearing for the petitioner, who happened to be an accused in the case. 4. The assailing grounds of the order of cognizance is two-fold, as submitted by Mr. S. L. Agrawal, counsel appearing for the petitioner, who happened to be an accused in the case. The first contention is that the Special Judge is not authorised to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/407/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as per Section 12-AA(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . The second contention is that at the relevant time of seizure, there was no limit to the carrying or preservation of wheat at the relevant time under the Unification Order and as such prosecution under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is bad in the eye of law. 5. For deciding the first point, it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions nf Section 12-AA(2) of the E. C. Act, which runs as follows : "12-AA(2) 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 Code, be charged at the same trial: Provided that such other offence is, under any other law for the time being in force, triable in a summary way." 6. Sections 405/407/120-B are the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which can be tried only under warrant procedure and not through summary procedure and as such it is not within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act to take cognizance of these provisions of penalogy alongwith the penal provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. This point had been raised before this Court which was decided in the positive by a Single Bench of the Court as reported in 1991 East CrC 726, Sajug Sah V/s. State of Bihar. In construing the interpretation of Statutes under the Constitution of India and the Essential Commodities Act and Section 12-AA, this Court rightly held that the Special Judge constituted for the purpose of trial of the case under the E. C. Act is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence of Indian Penal Code or any other penal provisions besides E. C. Act which can be tried only under the warrant procedure and it was held that such cognizance is bad in the eye of law. It was further observed that besides the charge under Section 7 of the E. G. Act. It was further observed that besides the charge under Section 7 of the E. G. Act. Further charges under the Indian Penal Code arisen out of the same facts can be separately tried by separate courts having proper jurisdiction and no question of double jeopardy arises as the same accused is being tried not for the same offence but for different offences under the same chain of circumstances and incidence. 7. Hence on the same analogy the cognizance taken in the present case under Sections 407/408/120-B, IPC is bad by the Special Judge, E. C. Act. 8. On the second point, it has been straneously argued by Mr. Agrawal that the offence was detected on 28-9-1988 and at that relevant point of time, G. S. R. 42 of 1987 under the Unification Order was in force. It can be mentioned here that the time of promulgation of Unification Order, there was no limit of wheat and rice were mentioned and it was held by this Court that when no limit was mentioned, prosecution for preservation or carrying of wheat or rice for violation of Unification Order is bad in the eye of law. Then came G. S. R. 42 dated 21-11-1987, which was held to be non-operative, as reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 143, as it had not the concurrence of Central Government. It was again corrected only in the year 1990. So at the relevant time, there was no limit of wheat and as such the launching of prosecution under the E. C. Act for violation of Unification Order is improper and bad in the eye of law. 9. In the circumstances, the cognizance taken under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is held to be bad and the cognizance taken by the Special Judge E. C. Act under Sections 406/407/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is also bad but in the circumstances of the case, it is open to the prosecution to proceed with the prosecution under those Sections of Indian Penal Code before an appropriate Forum, if they desire so. 10. With this observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.