Harmonious construction under the Essential Commodities Act preserved cognizance on complaint by a competent public servant.

Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act was held not to be impliedly repealed or overridden by Section 12-AA(1)(e), because the provisions could operate together on a harmonious reading. Section 11 continued to permit cognizance on a written report by a public servant, including a police report, while Section 12-AA(1)(e) was treated as clarificatory and enabling Special Courts to take cognizance on a police report without committal, not as excluding other lawful modes. The doctrine of implied repeal was therefore inapplicable, and cognizance on a complaint by a competent public servant was valid. The Special Judge was competent to proceed, and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was impliedly repealed or overridden by Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 so as to permit cognizance only on a police report, and whether a Special Judge could take cognizance on a complaint by a Drug Inspector.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the amended and unamended provisions was read harmoniously. Section 11 was not amended or deleted, and it expressly permitted cognizance on a report in writing by a public servant, which could include a police report. Section 12-AA(1)(e) was treated as clarificatory, enabling Special Courts to take cognizance on a police report without committal, and not as excluding other lawful modes of cognizance. The doctrine of implied repeal was held inapplicable because the provisions were not mutually inconsistent and both could operate together. Support was drawn from the principle that a Special Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction is not confined to one mode of cognizance merely because the statute mentions police reports.

Conclusion: Section 11 was not impliedly repealed, and cognizance on a complaint by a competent public servant was valid. The Special Judge was competent to proceed with the case.

Final Conclusion: The petition to quash the proceedings was rejected, and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended provision can operate consistently with the existing cognizance provision, courts must give effect to both by harmonious construction and must not infer implied repeal unless the provisions are truly irreconcilable.

---