JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has made reference to this Court under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the following questions : (i) When the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, then how the provisions of Section 326(3) will be applicable. (ii) Whether after the expiry of Special amendment Act of 1981 the provisions of Section 12A of 1955 Act, will be applicable on the cases registered during the continuance of 1981 Act but still pending? (iii) Whether in absence of notification by the Central" Government with the approval of Parliament as required under Section 12A of 1955 Act, cases still pending can be tried summarily, and Section 326(3) of Cr PC will be applicable to those cases? (iv) Whether in case of non-application of Section 326(3) Cr PC the evidence recorded by Special Judge (under the Special Amendment Act, 1981) Court of S.D.J.M can act and read those statements of witnesses, while deciding the case before him? (v) Whether offences punishable up to 7 years under the E.C. Act, 1955 come under the category of warrant trial or not? 2. For ready reference Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted herein below : "Reference to High Court-(1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefore, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court. Explanation.-In this section, "Regulation" means any Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), or in the General Clauses Act, of a State. (2) A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if it or he thinks fit in any case pending before it or him to which the provisions of subsection (1) do not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of such case. (2) A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if it or he thinks fit in any case pending before it or him to which the provisions of subsection (1) do not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of such case. (3) Any Court making a reference to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, pending the decision of the High Court thereon, either commit the accused to jail or release him on bail to appear when called upon." 3. From the facts appearing the reference as stated by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, it appears that nowhere it has been stated that any case involving the question referred by him is pending before him. 4. Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly envisages that to make a valid reference under the aforesaid section it must be shown that the question of law referred for the decision of the High Court arises in a case pending before the Court, which has referred it. If no case is pending before a Subordinate Court, then it has no power or jurisdiction to make reference under Section 395, Cr PC. 5. The High Court will not under Section 395, Cr PC answer any hypothetical question of law. Any Subordinate Court cannot make reference to the High Court under Section 395 of the Cr PC unless the questions referred to arise in a particular case pending before it. 6. It is a settled law that different views of law may be taken by some other High Courts but that certainly cannot be a ground to make reference under Section 395 of the Cr PC. The Subordinate Court must obey the law laid down by its own High Court. It is also settled law that the Subordinate Court cannot make reference under Section 395 of the Cr PC, a point which is already covered by the decision of its own High Court. The reference cannot be made on the ground that some other High Court has taken a different view. 7. It is also settled law that the Subordinate Court cannot make reference under Section 395 of the Cr PC, a point which is already covered by the decision of its own High Court. The reference cannot be made on the ground that some other High Court has taken a different view. 7. In view of my discussion and finding above, I find that since no case was pending before the SDJM, Gumla, in which he had to decide the question referred by him to this Court and, therefore, the reference under Section 395 of the Cr PC by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, is not maintainable and thus is bad. Accordingly, the reference is rejected. 8. I place on record my appreciation of the able assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Mr. P D Agrawal.