D. P. SIRCAR-I, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revisional application under section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No. 38 of 1991 under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, pending before the learned Speical Court (under the Essential Commodities Act) at Siliguri for contravention of paragraphs 10 (1) (3) and 13 (5) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982. ( 2 ) THE complaint was lodged against the petitioners under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the E. C. Act, 1955 for violation of paragraphs 10 (1) (3) and 13 (5) of the West Bengal Licensing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order 1982, hereinafter referred to as, the order, on the basis which G. R. Case No. 53 (11) of 1987 was started and subsequently on being referred to the Special Court was registered as Special Case No. 38/91 at Siliguri. The complaint was in the term that the petitioner No. 2, Anchal Pradhan of a local Panchayat, drew 150 bags of ACC cement from the Government godown for the purpose of development work in his Anchal, but was unloaded the cement before the godown owned by the petitioner No. 1, while the local people accosted him and the matter was informed to the police. The I. O. , however, submitted final report before the Special Court. The learned Judge, Special Court was not satisfied with the final report and directed the Investigating Officer to record statements of certain specific persons, namely some Government Officers, in course of further investigation. The I. O. complied with the direction of the Special Court and as such the case was kept pending beyond the time limit when the report was submitted to the learned Special Judge. Thereafter by his order dated 13-7-88 the learned special Judge held on perusal of the materials maintained in the c. d. that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the present petitioners and one Tarapada Biswas for the offence as alleged. Thereafter the learned Special Court treated the final report filed by the I. O. on 16-5-88 as complaint and took cognizance of the offence under sub-clause (3) of section 12a of the EC Act, 1955 as amended up to date and issued process against the petitioners and Tarapada Biswas. Thereafter the learned Special Court treated the final report filed by the I. O. on 16-5-88 as complaint and took cognizance of the offence under sub-clause (3) of section 12a of the EC Act, 1955 as amended up to date and issued process against the petitioners and Tarapada Biswas. The petitioners, however, filed petition before the learned Special Court for their discharge on the ground of contravention of section 167 (5) of the Code and the illegality committed by the learned special court in directing investigation and taking cognizance on the final report. The learned Special Judge, however, rejected the petition. No relief was allowed to the petitioners by the successors of the Special Court who passed order dated 13-7-88 on the ground that any such action was beyond their jurisdiction and as such the case against the petitioners continued. The petitioners challenge the aforesaid order by filing this revisional application. ( 3 ) IN this case none appears for the State of West Bengal and the case goes ex parte. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners Mr. Bose argues that the act of taking conizance by the learned Special Court has no sanction of the Cr. PC and as such the revisional application should be allowed and the Speical Court case should be quashed as the action taken was altogether illegal. The learned Speical Judge did not have any jurisdiction to convert any final report to a complaint or charge-sheet or to direct investigation. He relies on section 167 (5) Cr. PC and claims that as the investigation have not been completed within the statutory period, the accused persons were entitled to be discharged. ( 5 ) THE argument that the accused persons earned the right of being discharged after passage of the statutory period as provided under section 167 (5) Cr. PC holds no water any longer in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court as reported in 1998 Cr. LJ 3282 wherein it was held that time schedule under section 167 (5) was not to be treated with rigidity and discharge of the accused on expiry of the period indicated in section 167 (5) was not mandatory. Again this argument of Mr. Bose invoking the benefit of section 167 (5) Cr. PC is not available to him, as the police submitted the report, whatever they could submit within time, and section 167 (5) Cr. Again this argument of Mr. Bose invoking the benefit of section 167 (5) Cr. PC is not available to him, as the police submitted the report, whatever they could submit within time, and section 167 (5) Cr. PC relates only to failure of the I. O. to submit report after investigation. Whatever be the future course of action as taken by the learned Special Judge which I propose to come to later on, investigation was completed with the sanction of the court within time and as such the provision of section 167 (5) Cr. PC was never transgressed. This argument has no substance. ( 6 ) THE next part of the argument of Mr. Bose relates to illegality on the part of the learned Special Judge in taking cognizance in the matter and in issuing process. It appears from the petitions that on 16-5-98 police filed c. d. before the Special Court along with the final report. The learned Special Judge found the report as not acceptable and directed the I. O. to proceed with further investigation and to examine some witnesses as referred in the order dated 6-6-88. On 13-7-88 the I. O. submitted the c. d. with the statements of those witnesses who were examined pursuant to the order of the learned Special Court and the learned Judge on perusal of the material found in the c. d. , took cognizance against the present petitioners along with one Tarapada Biswas for contravention of some paragraphs of the order attracting the mischief of section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the E. C. Act and issued proccess against each of them and the D. E. O. , Siliguri was directed to cause service of the same. ( 7 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Bose argues that this is a procedure in which the learned Special Judge converted the final report to a complaint, took cognizance of the offence on such document and proceeded with the trial of the accused persons, not only against whom the FIR was lodged but also another person, Tarapada Biswas. This act of the learned Special Judge and the consequent order dated 13-7-88, Mr. Bose argues, is altogether illegal and unknown to the Code of Crimianl Procedure. ( 8 ) AFTER giving anxious consideration to this argument of Mr. This act of the learned Special Judge and the consequent order dated 13-7-88, Mr. Bose argues, is altogether illegal and unknown to the Code of Crimianl Procedure. ( 8 ) AFTER giving anxious consideration to this argument of Mr. Bose which proceeds ex parte, in absence of any lawyer for the State, I am constrained to hold that this argument does not have any substance at all. It has been decided in umpteen judicial pronouncements that in such cases the court is entitled to take cognizance of the case under section 190 (1) (b) of the Cr. PC. The argument of Mr. Bose that the action taken by the learned Special Judge as above was novel and did not have any sanction of the Cr. PC is not at all correct. ( 9 ) A Magistrate (here the Special Judge) can take cognizance under section 190 (1) Cr. PC of any offence: (a)upon receiving a complaint of fact which constitutes offence; (b)upon a police report of such facts; (c)upon information received from any person other Police Officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. ( 10 ) IT is clearly revealed that about submission of the report under section 173 Cr. PC, there was no intervention by court in his judicial capacity. Hence it can/may be argued that by making a judicial order after Final Report the learned Special Judge controlled or influenced the investigation and submission of the police report. On consideration of police report whatever action he takes, he takes judicially and it is a judicial proceeding. The court is sufficiently empowered to peruse the c. d. maintained by the I. O. and it, is in fact, incumbent upon the Magistrate (here, the Special Judge) to peruse the c. d. in the interest of justice, as the c. d. enables the court to discover the material facts which can be brought to light through examination of witnesses and arrived at truth in the interest of justice. The c. d. may furnish indicative evidence, as for example, it may give sources and lines of inquiry and names of person who may be able to give material evidence. This is as per legal principle decided in may cases viz. ILR 19 Allahabad 393, 395 Full Bench, AIR 1935 Rangoon 370, 10 CWN 600. The c. d. may furnish indicative evidence, as for example, it may give sources and lines of inquiry and names of person who may be able to give material evidence. This is as per legal principle decided in may cases viz. ILR 19 Allahabad 393, 395 Full Bench, AIR 1935 Rangoon 370, 10 CWN 600. Therefore, what the Special Judge did to collect information about the lines of inquiry and name of the persons who may be able to give material evidence was not at all illegal. He had lawful jurisdiction to peruse the c. d. and if he found any erroneous report by police had authority to point out the lacuna and ask police to help him to take steps in some definite way to divulge the truth. ( 11 ) WHEN a charge-sheet or a final report is submitted before a court it is incumbent upon the Judge concerned to examine the report for either taking cognizance or for refushing to take cognizance in his judicial capacity. Under section 319 of the Code, the court can proceed against persons not named in the report. The court is empowered to differ with the police report, be it a charge-sheet or a final report and directed the persons, not named in the report, or not sent up, be put up for trial ( AIR 1978 Patna 298 Special Bench ). Special Judges' power under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 to take cognizance is wider than that of the Magistrate, which includes his power to order re-investigation (AIR 1962 Bombay 205 ). Whether it is a charge-sheet or a final report, after investigation it is open to the Magistrate (or the Special Judge), after exercising his judicial discretion, to take the view that the fact disclosed in the report do not make an offence for taking cognizance, not only against the persons named in the FIR but also against other persons as disclosed from the materials contained in the c. d. It is the settled principle of law that after submission of the report in the final form as provided under section 173 (2) Cr. PC if the court disagrees with the opinion of the police and feels after considering the report that investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or there is scope for further investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the report and direct the police to make further investigation. If the court, however, can form any opinion from the materials set out in the report, that those constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (i) (b) Cr. PC, notwithstanding contrary opinion of the police and this he can do even after further investigation, if, directed by him the police submits also again a final report (AIR 1968 SC 177, AIR 1980 SC 1883 , AIR 1962 Cal. 135 F. B) It is also settled principle of law that where the police after investigation has challanged some accused and had not challanged others and the court subsequently issued process against the accused not challenged, it would be held that the court took cognizance lawfully under section 190 (i) (b) ( AIR 1967 SC 1167 , AIR 1978 SC 1568 ). It has been held in AIR 1978 Patna 298 S. B. that if the court feels that the materials collected during investigation reveal commission of offence, differing from the final report he can take cognizance under section 190 (i) (b ). Courts are not handmaids of police. A court may take cognizance or refuse to take cognizance irrespective of the views taken by the police. Recourse need not be taken by the court in such case to the procedure laid down in sections 200 and 202. ( AIR 1989 SC 885 ). ( 12 ) IT is, therefore, amply established that the learned special Judge was perfectly justified in taking cognizance on the police papers produced before him irrespective of the views of the policemen and considering the materials disclosed in the c. d. he was perfectly justified in refusing to accept the final report and direct the police to examine witnesses from whom materials could be collected, and, on perusal of the materials contained in the c. d. , he was also justified to take cognizance and issue process. ( 13 ) THIS revisional application, therefore, be and is dismissed. ( 13 ) THIS revisional application, therefore, be and is dismissed. The learned Special Judge be informed of this order and directed to proceed with the case against all the accused against whom he issued processes as per provision of law. Application dismissed.