JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition raises a question of law which goes to the root of the case and pertains to jurisdiction of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, to try cases for the offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, necessary facts, in brief, may be stated : 3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was an authorised dealer for distribution of levy-sugar in the area of Gram Panchayat, Kakarala. On April 22, 1983, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur alleging certain irregularities in distributing sugar for the months of July and August, 1982, which violated provisions of the Rajasthan Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, punishable under Section 7 read with section 3 of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on April 22, 1983 and issued process against the petitioner to secure his attendance. In pursuance to the process, the petitioner appeared in the said Court. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. The charge came to be framed on 30.10.90 i.e. after more than 7 years of filing of the complaint and the case is still pending in the aforesaid Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner contended that vide Notification No. F.2 (23) Judl./J/82, dated, September 1, 1982, the State Government has constituted Special Court for Sawaimadhopur in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section-12A of the Act for trial of cases under the Act. That after constitution of the Special Court, no other court including the court of C.J.M. or A.C.J.M. had/has any jurisdiction to try any case punishable under the Act. Learned counsel has produced a copy of the Rajasthan Gazette dated September 9, 1982, wherein this notification has been published. 5. By the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (Central Act No. 18 of 1981) drastic changes were made in the Act of 1955 with a view of providing speedy trial of the offences under the Act. New sections-12A and 12AA were substituted for constitution of Special Courts and trial of offences by Special Courts. 5. By the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (Central Act No. 18 of 1981) drastic changes were made in the Act of 1955 with a view of providing speedy trial of the offences under the Act. New sections-12A and 12AA were substituted for constitution of Special Courts and trial of offences by Special Courts. Section-12A empowered the State Government, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under the Act, by notification in the official gazette, to constitute as many special courts as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. Sub-section (3) of section 12A further provided that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of Special Court unless - (a) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of High Court, or (b) he has for a period of not less than one year been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Sub-section (3) of section 12A further provided that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of Special Court unless - (a) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of High Court, or (b) he has for a period of not less than one year been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. 6. For the purpose of present controversy, Section 12AA is relevant which runs as under : "12-AA-Offences triable by Special Courts - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code - (a) all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court; (b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2-A) of Section 167 of the Code, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate: Provided that where such Magistrate considers- (i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or (ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him; that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he may, if he is satisfied that the case falls under the proviso to Section-8, order the release of such person on bail and if he is not so satisfied he shall order, such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction; (c) the Special Court, may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) of this sub-section, exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section; (d) save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Special Court or the High Court: Provided that a Special Court shall not release any such person on bail - (i) without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application for such release unless the Special Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is of opinion that it is not practicable to give such opportunity; and (ii) where the prosecution opposes the application, if the Special Court is satisfied that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the offence concerned: Provided further that the Special Court may direct that any such person may be released on bail if he is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm person, or if the Special Court is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason to be recorded in writing; (e) a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act (or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf by the Government concerned) (or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association) take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial; (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. (2) .......... (3) .......... (4) ..........." 7. A perusal of Section-12A and 12-AA makes it abundantly clear that after constitution of Special Courts for any area Under section 12 A all offences under the Essential Commodities Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. In view of this, the trial pending against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.J.M., Gangapur City for the offences punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Act is without jurisdiction and the same is void. It is really surprising that such an important fact remained unnoticed by the concerned Magistrate and the Lawyers of the parties and the petitioner had to face ordeal of lengthy trial having no jurisdiction to try the case. 8. The further question arises for consideration is as to what order should be passed by this Court; in other words, whether the case should be sent to the Special Court, Sawaimadhopur, for trial after lapse of more than 12 years ? Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone mental agony of protracted trial of more than 12 years, it would not be in the interest of justice that he should be asked to face de novo trial before the competent Court. After all, it is necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not harassed indefinitely. 9. In view of the above discussion, it is a fit case in which criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Gangapur City, in criminal case No. 291/85, be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Consequently, the proceedings are hereby quashed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court immediately.Petition allowed. *******