Judgment M. A. A. KHAN J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. challenges the order dated 22-5-1996, whereby the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act) Cases at Jaipur stated the particulars of the offences under Clauses 8 and 10 of the Rajasthan Controlled Cloth (Sales and Distribution Control) Order. 1975, (the Order of 1975) and Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) punishable u/s. 7 of the Act. file ://d :\prograrn Files\crirnes\database\aa\aa\cmo 1998-4 (879 of 1996 ). htrn 8/10/2006 ( 3 ) BEING of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient so to do for maintaining supplies of controlled cloth and securing its equal distribution and availability at fair prices the State Government, vide G. S. R. 87 dated 6-11- 1975, made the order of 1975. Clause 3 of the said Order empowered the Commissioner. Food and Supplies, Rajasthan or an Authorised Officer, to authorise any person or body of persons to be an authorised wholesaler or a Control Cloth holder in respect of controlled cloth for purposes of the Order. The wholesaler or Controlled Cloth shop holder, as the case may be was required to apply for issue of an authorisation in Form A in order to enable him to obtain the supply of the Controlled Cloth from the source specified by the Authorised Officer from time to time in the authorisation. By sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3 it was provided that after 31st January. 1976, no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with an authorisation issued under the Order of 1975. Before issuing the authorisation under Clause 3, the Authorised Officer was required to make such Investigation as he deemed fit and had the power to issue or refuse to issue the authorisation. Clause 5 of the Order of 1975 empowered the Authorised Officer to suspend or cancel and forfeit the security, deposited under Clause 4, on the contravention or attempt to contravene any of the provisions of the order or direction is sued there-under or any terms and condition of the authorisation by the person to whom the authorisation had been issued. Clause 11 required every dealer holding authorisation to maintain a true stock account in Form CT and also to correctly maintain a Daily Sales Register in Form "dtt. Clause 11 required every dealer holding authorisation to maintain a true stock account in Form CT and also to correctly maintain a Daily Sales Register in Form "dtt. He was further required to submit to the Authorised Officer or to any other Authority to be specified by him in that behalf, a true monthly stock and sale return in Form E. Clauses 8 and 10 of the Order of 1975, which are alleged to have been contravened in the present case, provided as under: Clause 8, Purchase and Sale by authorised wholesaler. (1) No authorised wholesaler shall purchase or obtain control cloth from any source other than that specified by the Authorised Officer from time to time. (2) No authorised wholesaler shall supply or offer or attempt or cause to be supplied or sell or transfer any controlled cloth to any person other than a controlled cloth shop holder and except under and in accordance with the authority letters issued in this behalf by the Authorised Officer from time to time. Clause 10. Issue of directions regarding sale/distribution.- Every Authorised wholesaler or controlled cloth shop dealer shall comply with all general or special direction given in writing from time to time by the Authorised Officer in regard to purchase, sale, storage for sale, distribution and dispose of controlled cloth on permit or otherwise and the manner in which the accounts thereof shall be maintained and re-turn submitted. Any contravention of such directions shall be deemed to be a contravention of this Order. ( 4 ) THE controlled cloth, the supply, equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of which was sought to be regulated by making the Order of 1975, was a subsidized essential commodity and therefore the State Government appointed a number of persons of the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Rajasthan and other persons from other departments to achieve the objective of the Order of 1975. ( 5 ) DURING the year 1983 the present petitioner and Mohan Lal used to deal in cloth in the business name and style of M/s. Chiranji Lal and Co. Jaipur. Sometimes prior to October 3, 1983 they had obtained an authorisation under Clause 3 of the Order of 1975 from the Authorised Officer for supply of controlled cloth to them as wholesale -dealers. On October 3, 1983 the said concern of M/s. Chiranji Lal and Co. Jaipur. Sometimes prior to October 3, 1983 they had obtained an authorisation under Clause 3 of the Order of 1975 from the Authorised Officer for supply of controlled cloth to them as wholesale -dealers. On October 3, 1983 the said concern of M/s. Chiranji Lal and Co. , Jaipur was converted into or constituted as a partnership firm of which the present, petitioner and the aforesaid Mohan Lal became active partners. The other partners of this firm were Ram Swaroop, Laxmi Narain and Smt. Meena Devi. On the basis of the authorisation issued in the name of M/s. Chiranji Lal and Co. Jaipur prior to 3-10-1983 the petitioner and Mohan Lal obtained the supply of 1005 bales of the controlled cloth from National Textile Mills during the period between 15-10-1983 and 20-9-1984. They are, thereafter, alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with Radhey Shyam, a Managing Partner of M/s. Globe Transport Corporation, and Vishnu Kumar, to sell the controlled cloth to un-authorised cloth shop holders or other persons in contravention of the express provisions of Order of 1975 and the terms and conditions of the authorisation and the directions issued by the Authorised Officer regarding sale and distribution of such cloth. In pursuance of such criminal conspiracy the petitioner and co-conspirators are stated to have supplied, sold or; transferred 114 bales to persons other than controlled cloth shop holders during different periods. The petitioner and other co-accused are alleged to have prepared false bills and/or cash memos in the names of 14 persons in respect of 98 bales. Similarly 30 bales were wrongly and falsely shown as having been received/sent through Globe Transport Corporation. The petitioner and other accused in the case were thus alleged to have committed offences u/ss. 8 and 9 of the Act read with Clauses 8 and 10 of the Order of 1975, punishable u/s. 7 r/w. Sec. 3 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE main contention of Mr. Raghav is, that the offence alleged to have been committed in the present case was punishable with imprisonment for one year only and since the learned Judge took cognizance of the said offence as late as on 22-5-1996 the same was hit by the limitation provisions contained in Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. I think the arguments is misconceived. Raghav is, that the offence alleged to have been committed in the present case was punishable with imprisonment for one year only and since the learned Judge took cognizance of the said offence as late as on 22-5-1996 the same was hit by the limitation provisions contained in Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. I think the arguments is misconceived. ( 7 ) AS provided by Section 12-AC of the Act the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, save as otherwise provided in the Act, apply to the proceedings before the Special Court constituted u/s. 12-A. as a Special Court is to be deemed to be a court of Sessions. Therefore Section 468 to Sec. 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court. Section 468 (2) prescribes the following periods of limitation for various kind of offences, namely. (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only, (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Sec. 7 of the Act speaks of the penalties leviable for contravention of any Order made u/s. 3, Sec. 7. as is relevant for our purposes, reads as under: Sec. 7 Penalties: (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3,- (a) he shall be punishable. (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that Section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall, also be liable to fine, and (j) in the case of any other Order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. T Clause (h) and Clause (i) of subsection (2) of Sec. 3 referred to in the language of Sec. 7 (1) (A) (i) above, read as under: Sec. 3 (2): Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-Sec. (1), an order made there-under may provide (h) for collecting any information or statics with a view to regulating of prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters; (i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or, trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such, books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order. ( 8 ) IT may be noted that Clauses (h) and (1), talked of in Section 7 (1) (a) (i), which makes the offences contemplated therein punishable with one year imprisonment, speak of such orders only as relate to the collection of informations or statics with a view to regulating or prohibiting the production supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein. Similarly clause (i) speaks of those orders, which are made u/s. 3 for requiring the persons engaged in those business activities to maintain and produce for inspection such books accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto as may be specified in the relevant order. Neither of these clauses speaks of such orders as may provide for the very regulation or prohibition of the production, supply and distribution of the essential commodity and trade and commerce therein. Order of 1975 provides for maintaining supplies of controlled cloth and securing its equitable distribution, and availability at fair prices. This Order thus falls within the ambit of sub-clause (it) and not of sub-clause (1) or Clause (a) of sub-section. (1) of Section 7 of the Act. The offences contemplated by order of 1975 are, therefore, punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three months and may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. That being so, the provisions contained in Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, do not hit at the prosecution of the petitioner in this case. That being so, the provisions contained in Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, do not hit at the prosecution of the petitioner in this case. ( 9 ) APART from the above, the petitioner is alleged to have made false statement and furnished information, which was false and which he knew or had reasonable cause to believe to be false, or did not believe to be true. He is further alleged to have made such statement in his books, accounts, record, declaration, return or document which he was required to maintain by Clauses 11 and 12 of the Order of 1975. Apart from the contravention of the provisions of the said order the acts of commission of the petitioner were punishable u/s. 9 of the Act which makes the commission of the offence contemplated therein punishable with five years imprisonment or fine or with both. Section 9 is quite independent of Section 7 in its operation. Since the offence punishable under this provision is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years, which is the maximum punishment contemplated for the applicability of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge of offence u/sec. 9 of the Act is not barred by Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) AT this stage Mr. Raghav invited my attention to the proviso under Clause. (f) to sub-section (1) of Sec. 12-AA of the Act and submitted that since the offences under the act are triable by the Special Court in a summary way and the learned Special Judge in such trial cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner should be deemed to be punishable with three years only for the purposes of the applicability of clause. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. This argument too of Mr. Raghav is not, in my opinion, correct. Sec. 12-AA (1) (f) reads as under:sec. 12-AA. Offence triable by Special Courts: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. This argument too of Mr. Raghav is not, in my opinion, correct. Sec. 12-AA (1) (f) reads as under:sec. 12-AA. Offence triable by Special Courts: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. (f) all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Section 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. It may be noted that in the language of Sec. 7 (1) (a) (ii) the word used with reference to the punishment to be awarded to an offender under that provision of the Act is punishablet but in the language of Clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 12-AA the expression used is to pass a sentence of imprisonment. The two-expressions should not be confused in their meaning, scope and purposes. Whereas Sec. 7 provides for the punishment imposeable under the Act, the Provisio to Clause (f) of See 12-AA (1) Speaks of the extent of the power of the Special Judge to impose such punishment in a case, which has been tried by him in a summary way. The embargo placed on his power to impose punishment not exceeding two years has reference to the procedure of the trial adopted by him for punishing the of fender and not to the nature of the offence committed by him. The limit on the power of the Special Judge to punish an offender under the Act for a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, when the offender has been tried in a summary way does not in any manner reduce or minimise the very gravity of offence which is punishable for a term exceeding two years. Punishment is the infliction of penalty on the offender to make him suffer for the offence committed by him. Gravity of the offence determines punishment. Degree of the gravity of offence may differ from case to case, person to person, time to time and place to place. Punishment is the infliction of penalty on the offender to make him suffer for the offence committed by him. Gravity of the offence determines punishment. Degree of the gravity of offence may differ from case to case, person to person, time to time and place to place. The variance in the degree of the gravity of offence and the necessity of punishing the offender may require a change in the normal procedure to be adopted to punish the of fender. The procedure adopted to punish the offender does not affect the very gravity of the offence. Sentence is the consequence flowing after the conviction of the offender. It is the action of the court declaring the consequences of the act done by the offender. Thus the words punishable in Sec. 7 and sentence in Sec. 12-AA (a) (f) materially differ in meaning and scope. ( 11 ) IT may further be noted that in the language of Section 468 (2) Cr. P. C. the legislature has used the same word punishable while prescribing the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence. There is no reason as to why different meaning be attached to the same word, though it is used in two different statutes but conveys the same sense for serving the same purpose. The objection of Mr. Raghav is over-ruled. ( 12 ) IT was next urged by Mr. Raghav that the scarcity of cloth has long ceased to exist and the object of selling the controlled cloth to the Authorised shop holders only no more survives. The offence was allegedly committed in the year 1983 and therefore the continuation of the proceedings of prosecution of the petitioner and others in this case simply amounts to the abuse of the process of the court. ( 13 ) I am constrained to observe that the approach canvassed by Mr. Raghava cannot be applied to the commission of economic offences such offences are committed not only against an individual person but the society at large. Apart from the fact that commission of such offences is motivated by the desire of enriching oneself at the cost of the other members of the society mostly the poor and already deprived person, it also frustrates the socio-economic programme under taken by the State for the development and progress of its people and thus causes erosion in the national economy. Delay is not to coliseum such offence. That would not only encourage delaying tactics affecting the very system of administration of criminal justice adversely but would also amount to granting premium to offenders of socio-economic crimes. In the instant case the C. B. I. after through investigation of the case, submitted the report and it could not be disputed before me that sufficient time was wasted in procuring the attendance of the accused. No case of the abuse of the process of the court is made out in the present case. ( 14 ) IN the end Mr. Raghav submitted that trial of the accused in the case may be expedited. It was told that a number of cases involving the contravention of the same Order of 1975 are pending trial before the learned Special Judge. Summary trial is adopted for early disposal of a case. The accused should get the verdict of guilty or not guilty as early as possible and the general public should know that their interests are duly safeguarded. Ordinarily the evidence in such cases consists of documentary evidence obtained from the possession of the accused or the prosecution. By its very nature of such evidence there should hardly remain the necessity of entering into detailed and lengthy debate and dialogue with the witnesses. In summary trials ordinarily one or two witnesses make the relevant documents speak and there fore proceedings should come to end in one or two sessions. Such cases should therefore not arrest the attention of the Special Judge for long as they are well experienced in the procedure to be adopted in such cases and are excepted to dispose of such cases in accordance with the spirit and object behind the statute. The learned Special Judge is expected to dispose of all such cases within a month or two of the commencement of the trials therein. ( 15 ) IN the result this petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the special Judge on the date fixed by him or on 25-9-1997. Petition dismissed.