A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) REJECTION of States motion before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cumspecial Judge, Jaipur with conclusion that he has jurisdiction to try the opposite party - Bhagabat Panda (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short TIPC) and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the TAce) has brought the matter before this Court. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts leading to filing of the present application are essentially as follows: Opposite party as accused is facing trial in G. R Case No. 31 of 1984 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Section 7 of the Act. The aforesaid G. R case relates to Cuttack Vigilance Case No. 31 of 1984. The prosecution case is that on 21-3-1987 the opposite party posing himself as President of Jagada House Building Co-operative Society managed to receive 480 Metric Tonnes of levy cement from the Government and disposed of the same in open market. On 24-8-1995, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition in the Court of Special Judge, Jaipur stating therein that the said Court had no power to try the offence under Section 420. IPC along with Section 7 of the Act, as the latter offence is tried by a summary procedure. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge held that he had got jurisdiction to try the offence under warrant procedure, if in the same transaction the accused committed any offence apart from the offences under the Act. Reference was made to Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short. the Code) which authorises the Court to try all the offences committed by the accused in one transaction. The learned Special Judge held that he can try the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act by adopting warrant procedure, and therefore there is no difficulty. ( 3 ) MR. R. K. Mohanty learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has got no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 420. IPC. Reference was made to Sub-section (2) of Section 12-AA in this regard. ( 3 ) MR. R. K. Mohanty learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has got no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 420. IPC. Reference was made to Sub-section (2) of Section 12-AA in this regard. It is his stand that Sub-section (2) of Section 12aa of the Act lays down that the Special Court trying an offence under the Act may also try an offence other than an offence under the Act with which the accused may under the Code be charged at the same trial; provided that such offence is under any other law for the time being in force triable in a summary way. The distinctive feature according to him is that an offence under the Act is to be tried in a summary way where it cannot be done in an offence under Section 420. IPC. Mr. D. P. Sarangi for the accused. However, supported the order. ( 4 ) THE only question that falls for determination is whether Sub-section (2) of Section 12-AA covers the case at hand. The said provision reads as follows: 12-AA. Offences triable by Special Courts (2) When trying an offence under this Act a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may under the Code be charged at the same trial: Provided that such to her offence us under any other law for the time being in force triable in a summary way. Provided further than in the case of any conviction for such other offence in such trial it shall not be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding the term provided for conviction in a summary trial under such other law. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for parties that Section 420 IPC cannot be tried summarily and the Special Court under Section 12-AA of the Act can only try offences under the Act summarily the object being speedy disposal of cases. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for parties that Section 420 IPC cannot be tried summarily and the Special Court under Section 12-AA of the Act can only try offences under the Act summarily the object being speedy disposal of cases. Sub-section (2) of Section 12- AA of the Act lays down that when trying an offence under the Act a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under the Act with which the accused may under the Code be charged at the same trial; provided that such other offence is under any other law for the time being in force triable in a summary way. ( 5 ) AN offence under Section 420. IPC punishable for seven years cannot be tried summarily in view of the language of Section 260 of the Code. Said provision in general applies to offences not punishable for a term exceeding two years. It also applies in cases of specific offences mentioned in Clauses (ii) to (ix) of Sub-section (1) of Section 260. In this context it has to be noted that by holding a joint trial of the offence punishable under Section 420. IPC and the offence punishable under the Act, the accused is being deprived of right of appeal to the Sessions Court and further revision to the High Court. That apart the Special Court constituted under Section 12-AA of the Act is to be presided by a Judge who is qualified for appointment as High Court Judge or he has for a period of not less than one year been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, the Special Court is presided by an Additional Sessions Judge, and as provided under Section 193 of the Code, the Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offence directly except as expressly provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. The said section further lays down that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code. That being the position the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is presiding the Special Court does not have jurisdiction to try the matter. The said section further lays down that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code. That being the position the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is presiding the Special Court does not have jurisdiction to try the matter. This position has also been elaborately dealt with by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and others. The inevitable conclusion is that the order passed by the learned Special Judge is indefensible, and therefore, is set aside. He shall now proceed further in accordance with law. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed.