Judgment B.P. Singh & R.M. Prasad, JJ. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for a direction that the petitioner be released forthwith in view of the provision of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His grievance is that petition under the aforesaid provision was filed on 2-12-1998, but the learned Sessions Judge did not pass any order either accepting or rejecting the application. 2. The crucial question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the provision of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at all applies to the case of the petitioner. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an accused in Special Case No. C.I-2/98 arising out of Katihar Unit Case No. 24 of 1998 dated 12.9.98 for having allegeldy committed an offence punishable under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was arrested on 11.9.1998 on National Highway No. 31 when found in possession of 240 Kgs of Ganja. The Ganja recovered from the possession of the petitioner was seized, and a complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Customs before the Sessions Judge, Katihar, on 12.9.1998 against the petitioner for violation of section 8 of the aforesaid Act read with section 20(b) of the Act. It is not disputed that the court of Sessions Judge, Katihar is constituted as Special Court' under section 36 of the Act for the trial of offences under the Act. 4. From the order sheet of the court of Sessions Judge it appears that the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge on 12.9.1998, when he was remanded to custody till 26th September 1998. The court had asked for the relevant documents, and it appears that those documents were received by the court on 21.9.1998. After perusing the original documents, such as seizure list etc. the documents were directed to be kept in the file and the file was directed to be put up on 26th September, 1998, which was the date fixed in the case. It appears that earlier on 16.9.1998 the petitioner had filed an application for his release on bail, but that was rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 5.10.1998. the documents were directed to be kept in the file and the file was directed to be put up on 26th September, 1998, which was the date fixed in the case. It appears that earlier on 16.9.1998 the petitioner had filed an application for his release on bail, but that was rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 5.10.1998. It also appears from the order sheet of the court of Sessions Judge that the application preferred by the petitioner before the High Court for grant of bail was also rejected subsequently. The matter is now pending before the court of Sessions Judge. The prosecution has been directed to produce its witnesses for examination before the court. It is the case of the petitioner that so far no charge sheet has been submitted by the police and, therefore, the detention of the petitioner beyond the period of sixty days from the date of his arrest is hit by section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for maximum period of five years, the police should have submitted its report/charge sheet before the court within sixty days of the date of his arrest which has not been done. 5. Counsel for the respondents or the other hand, contends that section 167(2) of the Code has no application to the case of the petitioner, because the petitioner is being tried in a complaint case by the Special Court and there is no question of police investigating the case or submitting a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. On a mere perusal of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would be apparent that the section deals with investigation of a case by the police and pending investigation of the case the power of remand vested in the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code places limitation on the power of the Magistrate to pass an order of remand authorising detention of an accused in custody, if the police report upon completion of the investigation is not submitted within a period of ninety days if the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and sixty days where the investigation relates to any other offences. Apparently section 167 of the Code is applicable only to cases where the offence is being investigated by the police and during the pendency of the investigation power of remand is exercised by the concerned Magistrate. 7. Under section 36A (1) (d) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Special Court may, upon a perusal of report of the facts constituting an offence under the Act or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. It, therefore, appears that under the said provision if a complaint is made by an authorised officer, the Special Court may take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the trial of the accused in accordance with law. Sub-section (2) of section 36-A makes it abundantly clear 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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial. 8. The question then arises as to what is the procedure to be adopted by the Special Court for the trial of an offence under the Act on the basis of complaint made by the officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf. The first stage is reached when the complaint is filed and after perusal of the complaint and relevant documents the court proceeds further with the case without rejecting the complaint. If the Court chooses not to reject the complaint on the ground that it has no merit or on the ground that the court is prevented for any other reason from taking cognizance, the Court is deemed to have taken cognizance, and must proceed further with the case and fix a date for further proceeding. It is not necessary in law for a Court to say that it is taking cognizance because cognizance is deemed to have been taken if after perusal of the complaint and relevant documents the court proceeds to the next step in the proceeding. It is not necessary in law for a Court to say that it is taking cognizance because cognizance is deemed to have been taken if after perusal of the complaint and relevant documents the court proceeds to the next step in the proceeding. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also clarifies that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint is not required to examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses if the complaint is made in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official juries or where a court has made a complaint etc. In the instant case, the complaint has been made by an officer authorised by the concerned Government to file a complaint and, therefore, in such a complaint case it is not necessary for the Special Court to examine the complainant and his witnesses upon oath. 9. The next question is as to the procedure to be followed in a case of this nature where the offence alleged is one punishable under section 20(b)(1) of the Act. The said provision makes the possession of cannabis punishable, if it is in contravention of any provision of the Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder. Where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant the maximum punishment that may be imposed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. In the instant case the prosecution alleges unauthorised possession of 240 Kgs of ganja by the petitioner and. therefore, if found guilty the petitioner may be sentenced to a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment. Such being the nature of the offence and the punishment which may be inflicted, the case is to be tried before the Special Judge as a warrant case and, therefore, the procedure prescribed in the Code for trial of warrant case has to be followed. Section 36-C also makes this explicit by providing that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session, unless provided otherwise in the Act. 10. Section 36-C also makes this explicit by providing that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session, unless provided otherwise in the Act. 10. Once it is held that the case is triable as a warrant case the procedure to be followed is one under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sections 238 to 243 of the Code provide for the procedure to be followed in cases instituted on a police report, but sections 244 to 247 apply specifically to cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The case has been instituted not on a police report but on a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government authorised in this behalf by the State Government. The provision which is, therefore, attracted is section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that in such a case if the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The Magistrate may also issue summons to witnesses. Under section 245 if upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused is made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. A mere reading of Sections 244 and 245 makes it clear that the trial begins the moment the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate after he has taken cognizance, since the section enjoins upon the Magistrates to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Once the condition of section 244 is fulfilled, the trial commences notwithstanding the fact that if the court is satisfied under section 245 of the Code that no case against the accused is made out, it may discharge him. However, if the Magistrate finds that a case against the accused is made out which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, he must proceed further with the trial and conclude the trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code. However, if the Magistrate finds that a case against the accused is made out which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, he must proceed further with the trial and conclude the trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code. An officer of the Union of India authorised in this behalf has filed a complaint before the Special Court. The petitioner who has been arrested in connection with the case has been produced before the court. The Special Court after perusing the complaint, seizure list etc. has directed the same to be kept on the file and has directed the production of the accused on the next date for further proceeding. No doubt, in the order dated 16.12.1998 the Special Court has mentioned that the parties had been heard on the question of cognizance, the fact remains that after perusal of the complaint and the relevant documents if the court proceeded the next step of the proceeding that amounted to cognizance being taken. Very often courts confuse between the order issuing process and taking of cognizance. It appears from the order dated 16.12.1998 that after hearing the parties on the question of cognizance and finding that a prima facie case was made out under section 20 (b) of the Act, the Court has directed that the matter be heard on the question of framing of charges. From the subsequent orders as contained in the order sheet it appears that the prosecution is required to examine witnesses before framing of charge. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in a complaint case of this nature the trial commences if the Special Judge on a perusal of the complaint and other relevant documents proceeds to the next stage of the proceeding. The instant case is triable as warrant case and, therefore, the procedure to be followed by the Special Judge is one prescribed by sections 244 to 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the provision of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to the instant case, so far as the filing of police report within the prescribed period under subsection (2) of section 167 is concerned. The power to remand is vested in court trying the offence under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorises a court to pass an order of remand after taking cognizance of an offence pending the enquiry or trial. In the instant case, since the trial has commenced, the Special Court has power to remand the petitioner to custody under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 167 of the Code is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case. 12. We therefore find no merit in his writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.