Judgment N. C. KOCHHAR, J. ( 1 ) A case was registered at the Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City. Jaipur vide FIR No. 669/95 against the petitioner on the basis of a report filed by one Shri Han Ram Chaudhary, Enforcement Officer, Food and Civil Supplies Department, according to which, when he inspected the shop of the petitioner, who was running a fair-price shop on 12-11-1994, he found that certain records had not been maintained by the petitioner, who had failed to produce the same before him. The petitioner is stated to have committed an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), after investigation of the case, the police submitted the Final Report on 23-12-1995. The petitioner on learning about it, appeared before the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur (the learned Special Judge) and contended that no cognizance could be taken against him in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code ). The learned Special Judge, vide the impugned order dated 1-8-1996, has held that since the Court is empowered to award punishment for a period of two years, the cognizance can be taken within a period of three years from the date of commission of the offence and, as such, has rejected the contention and has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code. The learned P. P. has appeared for the State. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. ( 3 ) DURING the course of the arguments, it has not been disputed before me that the allegations against the petitioner prima facie shows that he had contravened the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. It has also not been disputed that in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act a person contravening clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine can also be imposed on him. It has also not been disputed that in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act a person contravening clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine can also be imposed on him. Clause (f) along with its proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 12-AA of the Act, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Special Judge, reads as under:12-AA (l) (f ).- All offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial: Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. ( 4 ) THE bare Reading of the abovesaid provision shows that even in case of summary trial conducted by the learned Special Court, sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years can be awarded. ( 5 ) AS noted above, for contravention of clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, the sentence prescribed is not exceeding one year. The power of the Special Court to impose punishment for the period upto two years does not authorise the Court to impose punishment for the said period for the offence for which the period of punishment is prescribed lesser than that. As noted above, the power of the Special Court is to award sentence upto the period of two years even in the case for which summary trial can be made but the fact remains that the maximum sentence provided for the violation in question is one year. ( 6 ) UNDER clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code, the period prescribed for taking cognizance of an offence punishable for imprisonment not exceeding one year is one year. In the present case, even the FIR was lodged after the period on one year from the date of the occurrence, and in view of what ias said above, no cognizance could be taken by the learned Special Judge after the abovesaid period. In the present case, even the FIR was lodged after the period on one year from the date of the occurrence, and in view of what ias said above, no cognizance could be taken by the learned Special Judge after the abovesaid period. The learned Special Judge, in my view, erred in passing the impugned order, and if the same is not set aside, it would result into injustice to the petitioner. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 1-8-1996 passed in Case No. 12/96 by the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur, arising out of F. I. R. No. 669/95 of Police Station, Sodala, Jaipur City, Jaipur and quash the proceedings pending before the said Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.