JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balangir taking cognizance of offence u/s 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the Petitioner and other accused persons. 2. A prosecution report was submitted stating that the Petitioner was appointed as a Storage Agent for Bongamunda Block for the year 1997-98 by the District Manager, Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Balangir. The Storage Agency of the Petitioner was allowed to be continued for the year 1998-99 and accordingly licences were issued under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 for both the years 1997-98 and 1998?99. Accused No. 2 who is not a Petitioner before this Court is the husband and power of attorney holder of the Petitioner. He was looking after all the work in respect of the Storage Agency on behalf of the Petitioner. Certain allegations were received against the Petitioner from the President, Zilla Parishad, Balangir and on the basis of such allegations an enquiry was conducted by the Civil Supplies Officer, Balangir. The Marketing Inspector, Civil Supplies Corporation, Balangir also accompanied the Civil Supplies Officer and conducted enquiry. During the enquiry it was revealed that the Secretary, Bangomunda Gram Panchayat was shown to have been issued with rice by the Petitioner as Storage Agent as per the issue register maintained by the Storage Agent to the tune of 255 quintals of rice, are stated to have been issued on 7.4.1998 and on 27.4.98. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat denied to have received the said stock and on verification of the accounts maintained by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat it was noticed that stock had not been entered in the stock register. Therefore, the Civil Supplies Officer was of the view that the shortage of 255 quintals of rice as mentioned in the issue register maintained by the Petitioner had not at all been supplied to the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat. During enquiry several other irregularities were also found to have taken place and upon verification of all the relevant records and on completion of enquiry, the prosecution report was submitted against the Petitioner and some other accused persons alleging the offence to have been committed under Sections 7,8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. During enquiry several other irregularities were also found to have taken place and upon verification of all the relevant records and on completion of enquiry, the prosecution report was submitted against the Petitioner and some other accused persons alleging the offence to have been committed under Sections 7,8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the basis of the prosecution report the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the said offences in the impugned order. 3. Shri Dhal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, challenges the impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. According to Sri Dhal, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 came into force with effect from 1.4.1995. As the Act was insufficient in controlling the supply, distribution, trade and commerce, it was amended in the year 1981 by Amending Act No. 18 of 1981 and Section 12(A.A.) was inserted into the Act with a non-obstante clause. Shri Dhal further submitted that as per Section 12(A.A.) (I) (B) of the Act Special Court upon perusal of the police report and the facts constituting an offence under the Act can take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed for trial. Section 11 of the Act prescribes that no Court shall take cognizance for offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting the said offence by a person who is a "public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Penal Code. Shri Dhaf submitted that the Amending Act was to remain in force for a period of five years, whereafter it was extended for another period of five years with effect from 1987 under the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Continuance Act, 1987. Again the Amending Act was extended for a further period of five years in the year 1992. After expiry of the said period, for the first time in the year 1997 an Ordinance was made in the name and style of "The Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1997 (Ordinance No. 21 of 1997) for a period of one year. After expiry of the period of the Ordinance, the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1998 was promulgated extending the period for one year. After expiry of the period of the Ordinance, the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1998 was promulgated extending the period for one year. After expiry of the said Ordinance, no further Ordinance has been made and the term of second Ordinance No. 13 of 1998 has expired with effect from 8.7.1998. In absence of any ordinance or amendment to the principal Act, the principal Act remains in force. As per the principal Act, 1955, power with regard to taking cognizance of offence under the Act lies in Section 11 of the Act and the said power lies with the Magistrate, whereas under the Amending Act power lies with the Special Judge created under the statute. Since the principal Act is in force, it is the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance and not Special Judge. Accordingly, Sri Dhal submitted that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the Ordinance, 1998 was in force when the offence was committed. Therefore, Special Judge has the jurisdiction to take cognizance. 4. Section 11 of the principal Act prescribes that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 12 of the principal Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for any Metropolitan Magistrate, or any Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, to pass a sentence of fine exceeding five thousand rupees on any person convicted of contravention of any order made u/s 3. Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, 1981 brought in certain amendment under the said Act 18 of 1981 and Section 12 of the principal Act was omitted. In place of Section 12-A of the principal Act, the following was substituted: Section 12-A: Constitution of Special Courts - (l) The State Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under this Act by notification in the official Gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) A Special Court shall consist of a single Judge who shall be appointed by the High Court upon a request made by the State Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a Special Court unless- (a) he is qualified for appointment as Judge of a High Court, or (b) he has, for a period of not less than one year, been a "Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Under the amended provision under Act 18 of 1981, Special Courts were constituted to, try offences under provisions of the Act. Preamble to Act 18 of 1981 runs as follows: Whereas for ensuring the availability of essential commodities at fair prices, it is necessary to curb the hoarding and black?111 marketing of, and profiteering in, such commodities: And whereas for dealing more effectively with persons indulging in such anti-social activities and the evil of vicious inflationary prices, it is necessary to make certain special provisions by way of amendments to the Essential Commodities Act 1955, (10 of 1955), for a period of fifteen years. 5. As per the Amendment Act, Special Courts were constituted and they started trying offences under the principal Act for a period of 15 years which expired in the year 1996. After expiry of the said Amending act 18 of 1981, the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1997 was brought in for a period of one year. After expiry of the said period of one year, the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Second Ordinance, 1998 was again brought in for a period of one more year and the period expired on 8.7.1998. After expiry of the period of second Ordinance, 1998 it is stated that there is no further Ordinance or amendment and therefore cases under the Act had to be decided as per provisions of the principal Act. Madya Pradesh High Court in a decision reported in 2000 Cri. L.J. 1306 (Dinesh Kumar Dubey and Anr. v. State of M.P.) while deciding an application for anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has observed as follows: It appears that by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, Section 10-A of the original Act of 1955 was amended and after the word 'cognizable' the words 'and non-bailable' were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of five years only from the date of commencement of 1981 Act. There-after by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act, 1987, para 2 of the Preamble of 1981 to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act 1981 was amended and in place of five years period, 1 0 years was substituted. Thereafter, by third Amendment, the said period of continuance was made for fifteen years. After expiry of fifteen years no amendment Act was bought into force but certain ordinance were issued. The last of the ordinance was issued in the year 1988, which lost its life and efficacy by lapse of time and thereafter no Act or ordinances have been issued to continue the provisions of Act 1981. Learned Counsel for the State was given opportunity to go through the provisions of law and report to the Court as to whether after 1988 any further Act has been brought in existence or any other ordinance was issued to continue the effect of 1981 Act. Learned Counsel for the State submits that despite his best efforts he could not find any other Act or ordinance which continues the effect and operation of 1981 Act. If 1981 Act has lost its life, then any amendment incorporated by the said Act, which was to remain in force for a period of five, ten or fifteen years, would come to an end and additional words: "and non-bailable" shall become honest and otiose. Section 10-A without the said amendment shall now be read as "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence punishable under the Act shall be 'cognizable. 6. With regard to availability of appellate forum under the amended Act 1981, a question arose in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3960 of 2000. In the said Criminal Misc. Case pending before this Court an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Commissioner-cum?Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department. In the said affidavit, the Commissioner has stated as follows: That the Essential Commodities (Supecial Provisions) Act of 1981 lapsed on 31.8.97. The Special Provisions of the Act were also continued vide Essential Commodities Act (Ordinance), 1998 which too lapsed on 8.7.1998. In the said affidavit, the Commissioner has stated as follows: That the Essential Commodities (Supecial Provisions) Act of 1981 lapsed on 31.8.97. The Special Provisions of the Act were also continued vide Essential Commodities Act (Ordinance), 1998 which too lapsed on 8.7.1998. The Special provisions including functioning of the Special Courts contained in he Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act 18 of 1981 and the subsequent Ordinance 13 of 1998 are no longer in force and, therefore, after their expiry, the provisions of the E.C. Act, 1955 in original Act revive." Relying on the decision referred to above as well as the affidavit filed by the Commissioner in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case, it is contended by Sri Dhal that since amending Act and Ordinances are no more in force and existence, recourse should to be taken to the principal Act and under the principal Act, it is the only Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance and not the Special Judge. There is no dispute about the fact that amendment brought into by way of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 remained in force for a period of fifteen years and thereafter the said provisions in the amending Act were continued by way of Ordinance, 1977 and 1998. After expiry of the period under the two Ordinances, there has not been any further amendment or ordinance providing continuance of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 any further. Therefore, in absence of the Amending Act, 1981, the provisions of the principal Act stand restored which had been kept under suspension during operation of the amending Act as well as Ordinances and accordingly Special Courts shall.have no jurisdiction to take cognizance and cognizance has to be taken only by those empowered under the principal Act. 7. Coming to the question as to whether in the present facts of this case, the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance or not, the prosecution report is required to be examined. From the prosecution report, it appears that during enquiry it was found that the Secretary, Bongamunda Gram Panchayat was shown to have been issued with stock of rice by the Petitioner as per the issue register maintained by her. From the prosecution report, it appears that during enquiry it was found that the Secretary, Bongamunda Gram Panchayat was shown to have been issued with stock of rice by the Petitioner as per the issue register maintained by her. From the said register, it appears that on 7.4.1998, 155 quintals of rice (BPL A/C) and on 27.4.1998, 100 quintals of rice (APL A/C) had been issued in favour of the Secretary of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. On further enquiry, it revealed that the amount of rice as indicated had not been received in the office of the Gram Panchayat and therefore prosecution believed that the rice had never been issued to the Gram Panchayat as reflected in the issue register. Further enquiry revealed that on several dates rice has been shown to have been issued to different Gram Panchayats which were ultimately found to be false and prosecution believed that the rice had never been supplied to the Gram Panchayats as indicated in the issue register. From the prosecution report it further appears that several such entries relating to issue of rice to different Gram Panchayats took place before 8.7.1998 when 1998 Ordinance was in force. Therefore, part of offence took place when the Ordinance was in force. 8. The argument advanced by Sri Dhal that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after expiry of the 1998 Ordinance does not hold good in the present case as part of offence had already been committed prior to 8.7.1998 and under the Ordinance of 1998, provisions of 1981 Amending Act had been extended and were operative. Since Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences in respect of those which were committed prior to expiry of 1998 Ordinance, there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the application and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed