JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. By order dated 07.06.2011 itself the Opposite Party No. 2 was called upon for filing the affidavit. The Opposite Party No. 2 has filed the affidavit which is on the record. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed through one Rakesh Kumar, the learned advocate along with Vakalatnama. 5. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 29.09.2010 passed in G.R. No. 425/2010/T.R. No. 1367 of 2010 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010. 6. The facts of the case, in narrow compass, wherein it has been stated that in the written report by one Kamal Nath Sahu, Superviser of Circle No. 0011 informed to the informant-Block Development Officer-cum-Charge Officer, Littipara Block that the petitioner namely, Rajendra Soren, Para-Teacher of Utkramit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Dumgo and was allotted the work of census. He did not satisfactorily work for census and as a result, several family has not been serialized in the panel and therefore requested the informant to engage another praganak to prepare a panel of family for census work and pursuant to receiving of that letter, the Block Development Officer-cum-Charge Officer, Littipara Block forwarded the letter to the Officer In-charge with written request for lodging a case against the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 11(1)(A) and 11(1)(A-A) of the Census Act, 1948. On the basis of the said written report, the Officer In-charge, Littipara Police Station registered a case vide Littipara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010 for the aforesaid alleged offence against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Shubham Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 11 of the Census Act, 1948 is a penal provision. He submits that it can be invoked only in compliance of Section 13(A) of the Census Act. 7. Mr. Shubham Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 11 of the Census Act, 1948 is a penal provision. He submits that it can be invoked only in compliance of Section 13(A) of the Census Act. He submits that there is no communication on behalf of the Director of Census Operation or any officer authorized by him for initiating the proceeding under the aforesaid section. He submits that this is a condition precedent for initiating a proceeding under section 11 of the Census Act. 8. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned counsel for the State tried to justify the order and submits that there is no illegality in the written report and on receiving the written report the Block Development Officer-cum-Charge Officer, Littipara Block has forwarded the same to the concerned police station. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 2-the Block Development Officer-cum-Charge Officer, Littipara Block wherein he has stated that the petitioner has willfully and deliberately neglected to work, however, on the law point the said affidavit is silent. 10. On perusal of the cognizance order dated 29.09.2010, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance under section 11 of the Census Act and transferred the file to another court for trial. In the cognizance order, there is no mention of the fact that any direction from the Director was there. For the sake of brevity, Section 13 and 13(A) of the Census Act, 1948 is reproduced herein-below: “13. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act: Provided that no such prosecution shall be instituted except with the previous sanction referred to in section 12. 13A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no police officer or court shall take cognizance of any offence under part (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11, except upon information received from or on a complaint made by, as the case may be, the Director of Census Operations or any officer authorized by him in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under part (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section (11) may be tried summarily.” 11. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under part (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section (11) may be tried summarily.” 11. On perusal of Section 13(A) of Census Act, it is crystal clear that it is condition precedent for initiating a proceeding under Section 11(a) of Census Act that a person must be authorized by the Director or any officer authorized by him in this behalf may file such complaint. This has not been done in the case in hand. In view of Section 13(A) of Census Act, the impugned order will not sustain in the eye of law. 12. Accordingly, impugned order dated 29.09.2010 in G.R. No. 425/2010/T.R. No. 1367 of 2010 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur and the entire criminal proceeding is quashed. 13. The interim order dated 07.06.2011 is vacated. 14. Cr. M.P. No. 28 of 2011 is allowed and disposed of. 15. Accordingly, I.A. if any also stands disposed of.