Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. As regards the contention that the Inspector of Food could not investigate the case, it is apparent that the direction was from the D.I.G. for fresh investigation as the material given in the final form earlier by the police has been misunderstood and misquoted. Under the Essential Commodities Act Section 11 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offences made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The Food Inspector is definitely a public servant. The D.I.G. himself becomes an inspecting officer under Section 36, Cr.P.C. and after collecting the material and getting the same himself or through his agency he should submit fresh report to the court by way of a charge-sheet or final form. So there is no bar for the Food Inspector to investigate and report and it will be for the D.I.G. on the basis of that report or on his own investigation to submit the charge-sheet. Hence the court was right in summoning the accused on the dates. Even au investigation could be reopened and if it is found that on the basis of investigation case ought to have been proceeded then even after discharge the court could take cognizance if the case was made out. Similarly on the application, that is the protest petition, the court could proceed on the basis of the said petition treating it to be a complaint and could have asked the complainant to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained under Sections 201 to 204, Cr.P.C.