Judgment :- 1. The respondents herein are the accused in S.T.C.No.561 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, and a complaint was filed against them by the Marketing Superintendent, Erode Market Committee, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce (Regulation), Agricultural Department, Kodumudi, for contravening the provision of Section 24(1) and 24(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and punishable under Section 48 of the Act. The learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused on the ground that at the time of filing the complaint, a Special Order required as per Section 58(2) of the Act was not obtained by the complainant and the cognizance taken by the Court was illegal. Challenging the said order of acquittal, the complainant had preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that though on the date of filing the complaint the order required under Section 58(2) of the Act was not obtained by the complainant, the Commissioner had ratified the action of the complainant and passed an order to continue to conduct the case by his Order-Ex.P.9, but, the trial Court has failed to appreciate same. 3. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. In this case, the complaint was filed by one Mr.R.Munusamy, Superintendent of the Regulated Market, Erode Market Committee. Section 58 of the Act reads as follows:- "58. Trial of offences.- (1) No offence made punishable by this Act or any rule, regulation or by-law made under this Act shall be tried by any court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. (2) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint in writing made by the Director or any officer empowered by him in this behalf by special order." 5. Admittedly, the complaint was not filed by the Director, but by the Marketing Superintendent of the Regulated Market. On the date of filing the complaint, the complainant was not empowered to file the complaint by any Special Order. The Court took cognizance of the complaint on 18.06.2010. Subsequently, Ex.P.9, the Proceedings of the Agricultural Marketing Sales Commissioner was obtained on 31.08.2010. On the date of filing the complaint, the complainant was not empowered to file the complaint by any Special Order. The Court took cognizance of the complaint on 18.06.2010. Subsequently, Ex.P.9, the Proceedings of the Agricultural Marketing Sales Commissioner was obtained on 31.08.2010. The Commissioner of Agricultural Produce Marketing passed a Special Order permitting the complainant-Munusamy, Superintendent to continue to conduct the case. In the said order itself, the case number viz., STC/561/2010 was mentioned. Therefore, it is very obvious that Ex.P.9 was brought into existence only after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case, which is violative of Section 58(2) of the Act. 6. It is observed by the learned trial Judge in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the order as follows:- "13.) Now this Court considered the next contention of accused with regard to the special order as stated in Section 58(2) of the said Act. This Court took cognizance on the complaint on 18.06.2010. At the time of filing the complaint special order not obtained by the complainant. Subsequently the Commissioner ratified the act of the complainant and passed an order to continue to conduct the case only on 31.8.2012 by the order Ex.P.9. The language employed in the Section 58(2) of the said Act, use of the words "No" and "shall make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power by the Court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Even though special order was obtained subsequently by the complainant, but defect of want of order at the time of submitting charge sheet cannot be cured by obtaining order subsequently. So taking cognizance of the case itself affected and the trial is vitiated. So there is some considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused. 14.) In view of the above discussion, this Court found that even though the first accused is liable to pay fee on transported coconuts because of it is a Matured Nuts but without obtaining Special Order as stated in Section 58(2) of the said Act, the cognizance of the case itself affected and the trial is vitiated and on that score alone accused have to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The properties lorry and coconuts are ordered to returned to their owners." 7. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The properties lorry and coconuts are ordered to returned to their owners." 7. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, acquitting the accused. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.