Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Cr. Misc. Nos. 3159, 3317 and 3883 of 1991(R) as all them arise out of the tame proceedings and the same impugned order passed by the Special judge (E. C. Act) Chaibasa. 2. The petitioners are accused in connection with Ghatsila P. S. Case No. 135 of 1989, dated 11-10-1989 (G. R. No. 25 of 1989), and the impugned order taking cognizance has been passed by the Lower Court on 1-11-1990 for for an offence under Sections 1 of the Essential Commodities Act, 414/34,1. P. C. and 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 3. The case arises out of an F. I. R. lodged by the Inspector of police, Ghatsila on 11-10-1989. According to the report, a raid was organised by the informant and it disclosed that iron scrap was found in the house of Gopi Ram Agarwalla and Mamraj Jain alongwith Shyam Sundar Jain, petitioners, who were loading part of that material in a truck bearing No. BPX 9058. Shyam Sundar Agarwalla was stated to be the owner of the said truck. The case was accordingly registered under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 414/34 IPC and 3 of the R. P. (J. P. Act against the petitioners and other accused. After submission of the charge sheet the impugned order taking cognizance has been passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the A. P. P. on behalf of the State have been heard. A perusal of the impugned order dated 1-11-1990 indicates that the same has been passed by the learned Special Judge without application of the judicial mind and without assigning any reason. Moreover, as laid down in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh V/s. State of Bihar 1995 (2) ElCrl Cases 64 (Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench), offences under the Indian Penal Code are triable only under warrant procedure, and cognizance of such offences cannot be taken by the Court of Special Judge. In this view of the matter, the cognizance of the offence under Sections 414/34, IPC taken against the petitioners by the Lawer Court vide impugned order is bad in law. In this view of the matter, the cognizance of the offence under Sections 414/34, IPC taken against the petitioners by the Lawer Court vide impugned order is bad in law. In so far as taking cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 3 of the R. P. U. P. Act is concerned, admittedly such offence can only be tried by the Railway Magisrrate, and not by the Court of Special Judge (E. C. Act) as in the present case. This is so, because in the present case the Court of Special Judge has been constituted for the purpose of trial of cases under the Essential Commodities Act, and is not empowered to take cognizance not only of the offence under the Indian Penal Code, but also any other Penal provisions, apart from the E. C. Act. Therefore, the impugned other against the petitioners taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3 of the R, P. U. P. Act cannot be sustained for this reason also. 5. Now coming to the question of taking cognizance for an offence under Section 7 of the said Act, neither in the F. I. R. nor in the impugned order it is indicated as to which Clause or the Order of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order has been infringed by the petitioners in the present case. In absence of the same, the impugned order is illegal on this ground also. 6. For the reasons recorded above, these applications are allowed. The impugned proceedings and the order dated 1-11-1990 passed against the petitioners are quashed. However, it is made clear that this will not affect the proceedings etc. in so far as the other accussd of this case are concerned, and it will be open to the prosecution to proceed in the matter against all accused, including the petitioners regarding the alleged offence under Sections 414/34, i. P. C. and 3 of the R. P. (U. P.) Act before the appropriate Court in accordace with law, if so advised.