Honble KHAN, J. – By his order dated 13.10.93 the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Cases has taken cognizance of offence U/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), on the complaint of the Enforcement Inspector of the Supply Department at Ajmer and summoned the petitioner as accused thereunder. The allegations made in the complaint were that the petitioner manufacturers cementunder the business name of M/s. Continental Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area, Madanganj Kishangarh (Ajmer) and when his said business premises were inspected by the officers of the Supply Department on 22.7.89 the petitioner was not found to have maintained the account of production and sale of cement correctly. It was also alleged that the petitioner had neither obtained any certifica-tion nor maintained the quality of the cement as required by the provisions of Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962, (the Order of 1962). It was further alleged that the sample of cement, manufactured by the petitioner and obtained from his business premises was found of poor quality on analysis. (2). Mr. Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the comp-plaint filed by the officer of the Supply Department was not maintainable. He relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sandeep Bhardwaj vs. State of Raj. (1). (3). The Amending Act 42 of 1986 brought about significant changes in Section 12-AA (1) (c) and apart from the power of taking cognizance by the Special Judgeof an offence under the Act upon a police report by adding the words ``or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf by the Government concerned in the language of Clause ``e of Section 12-AA (1) the Special Judge was made competent to take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint filed by an officer of the State Govern-ment also. In view of this position of law on 16.11.91 when the learned Special Judge took cognizance of offence U/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the present case, the argument of Mr. Naruka holds no water. The case relied upon is totally besides the point and hence not required to be discussed. (4). It was next urged by Mr. Naruka that the Enforcement Inspector was notexamined U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Judge was bad in law. Naruka holds no water. The case relied upon is totally besides the point and hence not required to be discussed. (4). It was next urged by Mr. Naruka that the Enforcement Inspector was notexamined U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Judge was bad in law. (5). Proviso to Section 200 clearly lays down that when the complaint is made in writing by a public servant, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, or the complaint has been made by a court, the Magistrate is not re-quired to examine the complainant and the witnesses. In view of this express provision of law the argument advanced by Mr. Naruka carries no weight and is dismissed. (6). It was next urged by Mr. Naruka that the averments made in the complaint did not disclose the commission of any offence. The averments made in the comp-laint have been briefly mentioned by me above. They do disclose, prima facie, the contravention of Order 1962 punishable U/s. 3/7 of the Act. The report of the analyst supports the averments. The letter written by the officials at the factory clearly mentioned that the petitioner was in charge of and person responsible of the business of the said concern. There is thus no merits in this contention either. (7). For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is held to be totally misconceived, filed with the motive of delaying the proceedings of the trial. It is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the learned Special Judge to dispose of the case within a month or two of the receipt of the record from this Court. The Dy. Registrar (Judl.) shall cause the record of the lower court delivered to that courtwithin three days of this order, failing which appropriate action for disobeying the order of the court may be taken against him. The delivery of the record shall be reported in writing to the court. The parties shall appear before the lower court on 25.9.97