ORDER: S. Ramalingam, the petitioner herein, filed a private complaint against the respondents requesting the Court to take cognizance for the offence under Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 read with Sec.7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The trial Court instead of taking the case on file, forwarded the complaint for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. In pursuance of the said order, the investigation was carried on. Ultimately, the police filed a final report to the effect that it is a case of civil nature and therefore, the complainant could seek his remedy through the Civil Court. Accepting the said report, the Special Court returned the complaint and closed the matter observating that no cognizance can be taken and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also issued notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor to assist this Court with reference to the question raised in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also made his submission. 3. According to the petitioner/complainant, the petitioner being a sugarcane grower supplied sugarcane to the accused valued about Rs. 5,51,777.94 as per the agreed price at the rate of Rs. 658.80 per M.T. and in pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner/complainant received only Rs. 5,13,765.05 and the balance of Rs. 33,313 was not paid despite repeated demands through notices and as such, the respondents/accused contravened Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 and they are liable to be punished under Sec.7(i)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The typed-set of papers filed by the counsel for the petitioner would disclose that the complaint was filed in November, 2000 and the same was returned for clarification and at last, with reference to the maintainability, the arguments were heard by the Special Court on 25.5.2001 and 28.5.2001. Thereafter, the Special Court forwarded the complaint for investigation under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. Accordingly, a final report was filed stating that the averment in the complaint is of a civil nature. Accepting the said final report of the police, the Special Court by order dated 31.8.2001 closed the matter as it is of a civil nature. 5. Accepting the said final report of the police, the Special Court by order dated 31.8.2001 closed the matter as it is of a civil nature. 5. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the proceedings, which arise out of complaint in question, cannot be closed merely on the basis of the final report of the Police Officer stating that the complaint is purely of a civil nature. 6. The Court, which is competent to take cognizance of the offence, is empowered to conduct enquiry under Sec. 202, Crl.P.C. by examining the complainant and the witnesses and dismiss the complaint under Sec. 203, Crl.P.C. if no prima facie case is made out. On the other hand, if the Court feels that it requires investigation by the police, the said complaint could be referred for investigation under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. and a final order could be passed after receipt of the police report. 7. In this case, instead of conducting enquiry by taking sworn statement from the complainant in order to find out whether prima facie case is made out or not, the complaint was referred for investigation by the police under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. It may be that the Court is empowered to do the same. But, it does not mean that the report of the police shall be accepted blindly. 8. Admittedly, after receipt of the final report, the complainant was not heard. Furthermore, the Special Court, which is competent to take cognizance of the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, can allow the complainant and the witnesses to give sworn statement and then find out whether the ingredients of the offence mentioned in the complaint are made out in those statements. 9. When the complainant would allege in the complaint the non-payment of the balance sale price, the Court has to find out as to whether the non-payment of the same within the stipulated period would attract the offence alleged. 10. Clause 2(i) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 would define the “producer of sugar”. Clause 3(1) would refer about the fixation of minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by the producer of sugar to the sugarcane grower as per the notification issued by the Central Government. 10. Clause 2(i) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 would define the “producer of sugar”. Clause 3(1) would refer about the fixation of minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by the producer of sugar to the sugarcane grower as per the notification issued by the Central Government. Clause 3(2) would indicate that no person shall sell sugarcane to a producer of sugar and such producer shall purchase sugarcane at a price lower than that fixed under the notification. Clause 3(3) would indicate that the producer of sugar shall pay the sale price as fixed under the notification or the agreed price, which is not lower than the said fixed price, within 14 days from the date of delivery of the sugarcane. Under Clause 3(4), if such a payment was not made within the stipulated period, the purchaser shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. 11. The reading of these provisions would make it clear that the Court, while entertaining the complaint on the basis of the averment in the complaint or the sworn statement to be recorded by the Magistrate, has to see as to whether any minimum price has been fixed by way of notification and whether the agreed price between the parties is above the said minimum price notified and whether that agreed price has not been paid after supply within the stipulated period so as to attract Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. This could be done only after taking sworn statements from the complainant and the witnesses. 12. Mere filing of the final report by the police stating that the complainant could be directed to take civil remedy would not suffice to hold that the complaint is of a civil nature. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside. 13. The Special Court is directed to take the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and conduct enquiry in accordance with Secs.200 and 202, Crl.P.C. and find out whether prima facie case is made out attracting Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside. 13. The Special Court is directed to take the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and conduct enquiry in accordance with Secs.200 and 202, Crl.P.C. and find out whether prima facie case is made out attracting Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. If the ingredients of the said provision are absent, it is open to the Special Court to dismiss the complaint under Sec. 203, Crl.P.C. On the other hand, if the complainant satisfied the Special Court by producing the materials which would attract the definitions as per Clauses 2(i), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, then the Court concerned would be empowered under Sec. 204, Crl.P.C. to issue summons to the accused party, who are actually responsible for the commission of the said offence. 14. With this observation, the criminal revision case is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to pass orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the complainant as indicated above.