JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is preferred by four petitioners namely, Shri Pesen Yomcha, Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta, Shri Ramadhar Rai, for quashing the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 11/2013, dated 28.08.2013 in Tezu P.S. Case No. 53/2012, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Criminal Proceedings arising there from and pending before the Court of learned District and Session Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, being Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Shri Ngurang Pinch and 4 others on 24.11.2012. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under: “On 24.11.2012, Shri Ngurang Pinch and 4 others, who are arraigned as respondent No. 2 to 5 in the present petition, lodged one complaint with the Officer-In-Charge, Tezu Police Station to the effect that Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta and Shri Ramadhar Rai of M/s Namsai Lamp Ltd Carriage Contractor of FCI carried PDS items from Tinsukia Godown and the same did not reach Tezu FCI Godown, instead the same were disposed of in Assam and they made entry of Trucks, carrying food items, in the receipt register of FCI Depot Tezu, in connivance with the FCI Depot Incharge, Tezu. It is also stated that at the relevant time i.e. in the month of September 2012, there was road blockade in between Pursuram to Tezu, which shows that reaching of the vehicles carrying food grain and showing the same in the registered book of FCI Depot, Tezu is false. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-In-Charge, Tezu, registered Tezu P.S. Case No. 58/2012, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in the submission of Charge-sheet by police being Charge-sheet No. 11/2013, dated 28.08.2013, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against all the 4 petitioners. In the usual course, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, who had initiated proceeding, being Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015, against the petitioners.” 3. In the usual course, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, who had initiated proceeding, being Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015, against the petitioners.” 3. Being highly aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015, is preferred the present petition on the following grounds: (i) That, the Court of Session Judge Tezu is not the Special Court constituted by the State Government under Section 12A of the Essential Commodity Act. (ii) That, the initiation of Criminal proceeding in respect of petitioner No. 1 is illegal as no prosecution sanction is granted under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 15A of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955, as he is an employee of the State Government serving under the Director of the Health Service Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and serving as the Depot In-charge of FCI Tezu on deputation. (iii) That, the witnesses examine by the Investigating Officer has not supported the prosecution version and besides, the Investigating Officer has taken signatures of the witnesses in the said statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such entire charge sheet and the Criminal Proceeding is liable to be set aside and quashed. 4. The respondent No. 2 to 5 has submitted their affidavit-in-opposition, denying the averment made in the petition. It is stated that a clear case is made out against the petitioners from the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer and that the question of prosecution sanction, in respect of petitioner No. 1 is not required, as he had not done the same in discharge of his official duties. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard learned Advocates of both sides, Mr. C.W. Mantaw, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner No. 1, who is a Government Servant in the absence of the prosecution sanction as require under section 197 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the petitioners are Charge- sheeted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act also and as per the Government Notification the court of Sessions Judge is not a Special Court constituted by the Government and further Mr. Mantaw, submits that if the Court finds that this is not a fit case for quashing the Charge-sheet, then with observation in respect of the points raised in this petition, the matter may be remanded to the learned Court below for consideration. 6. Per-Contra Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no case for quashing the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out here in this case and as such, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. It appears that Tezu P.S. Case No. 58/2012 under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Shri Ngurang Pinch (Ex-MLA) and 3 others on 24.11.2012, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioners namely, Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta and Shri Ramadhar Rai of M/s Namsai Lamp Ltd Carriage Contractor of FCI carried food grains from Tinsukia FCI Godown to FCI Depot Tezu, but the said food grains did not reach Tezu, instead the petitioners have disposed of the same in Assam. But, they have got the numbers of Trucks entered in the receipt register of FCI Depot in connivance with the FCI Depot In-charge, Tezu. 8. It is also stated that during that period there was road blockade between Pursuram Kund and Tezu, and reaching of food grains carrying vehicle was impossible. It is also stated that on receipt of the aforesaid information, the complainant rushed to FCI Depot Tinsukia and Tezu and checked the daily dispatched register collected from the Depot In-charge, Tinsukia and found that the M/s Namsai Lamp Ltd. had lifted the food grains in 81 Trucks during the month of September 2012, from Tinsukia FCI Depot so as to carry the same to Tezu FCI Depot. Thereafter, on 16.10.2012, with the help of Officers-In-Charge of Chowkham Police Out Post checked and verified the vehicle entry record of Pursuram Kund Police Check Gate, and found 45 Trucks, out of 81 Trucks, carrying food grains lifted from Tinsukia FCI Godown to FCI Depot Tezu, by M/s Namsai Lamp Ltd. did not cross the police check gate and they were surprised to note that how they made entry of reaching the Trucks with food grains in the register of FCI Depot. 9. It is also stated that the Commander of 48 Border Task Force, Demwe, Tezu stated that there was complete road blockade from 19.09.2012 to 29.09.2012, and on 28.09.2012, road communication was temporarily restored for light vehicle and the copy of the said report is enclosed in page No. 21 to 22 and the entry of 45 Trucks, made in the receipt register FCI Depot, Tezu during the blockade period. It also appears that the Investigating Officer has laid Charge-sheet against the petitioners who stand trial in the Court under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the Depot In-charge namely, Shri Pesen Yomcha, Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta and Shri Ramadhar Rai, the present petitioners, and supplementary Charge-sheet will be submitted against one Shri Pesen Yomcha on receipt of sanction order from the GM-FCI- RO, Itanagar. 10. On perusal of the impugned Charge-sheet, it appears that the Investigating Officer has approached appropriate authority for according sanction to prosecute the petitioner No. 1, Shri Pesen Yomcha for prosecuting him under Section 409 IPC by the letter dated 14.08.2013, but the same has not yet been received and supplementary Charge-sheet has not yet been submitted by the Investigating Officer. 11. A careful perusal of the FIR and the Charge-sheet and the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, left this Court unconvinced that no offence under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act, is made out against the petitioners. In fact, factual foundations of cognizable offences are clearly laid in the Charge Sheet. In fact, factual foundations of cognizable offences are clearly laid in the Charge Sheet. To a pointed query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in fact a prima facie case is made out, however, he is not on that point, but on the point of sanction and the lack of jurisdiction of the Session Judge to try the Case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act, as the Government has given such power to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khonsa, vide Notification No. 12.06.2017, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette 30.06.2017. 12. A careful perusal of the Section 12A of the Essential Commodity Act reveals that constitution of Special Court is required to try the offence committed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodity Act. It also appears from the Official Gazette produced before the court by the Addl. P.P. during hearing that the Government has issued the Notification No. JPU-82/86, which is published in the Official Gazette of Arunachal Pradesh, constituting Special Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khonsa is empowered to try the cases under Section 3 of the said Act. But, it appears that the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners not only under Section 7 of Essential Commodity Act but also under section 420/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 409 IPC without prosecution sanction, yet, it appears that in fact, the Investigating Officer has written a letter to the sanctioning authority to record prosecution sanction and on receipt of the same he will submit supplementary Charge-sheet. But, a perusal of the FIR and the Charge-sheet and the statement of witnesses, have already disclosed a prima facie offence, not only under Section 409 IPC, but also under Section 420 IPC, against the petitioners including the petitioner No. 1, Shri Pesen Yomcha and as such, the impugned Charge-sheet cannot be quashed by this Court. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , this Court is not entitled to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question, collected during investigation is reliable or not, which is the function of trial court. 14. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , this Court is not entitled to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question, collected during investigation is reliable or not, which is the function of trial court. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, it is provided that the learned Court below shall consider the points i.e. necessity as well as the availability of sanction to prosecute the petitioners under 409 Indian Penal Code and the power to try the cases under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, as contended at the Bar, and discussed herein above, at the time of consideration of charge, the stage in which the case is pending now. 15. Registry to send down the record of the learned Court below immediately with a copy of the judgment and order. On receipt of which, the learned Court below shall make an endeavor to dispose of the same within a reasonable time period. The parties have to bear their own costs.