ABDUL REHMAN ASANARU KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in Crl. M.C. 357 of 1993 are the accused in S.C. 8 of 1993. That case was instituted upon complaint by the Excise Circle Inspector, Punalur under S.20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegation against them is that they on 13-3-1990 at about 11 a.m. have kept 120 gms. of Ganja for sale in the shop taken on lease by the second petitioner. The Excise inspector had earlier filed a complaint before the magistrate Court on the very same allegation. That case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kollam and it was numbered as S.C. 58 of 1991. Charge was framed. It was read over to the petitioners on 1-12-1992. Case was posted for trial on 16-1-1993. On that day the Sessions Court was apprised of the fact that the Excise Inspector who filed the complaint (Annexure A1) before the Magistrate was not authorised by the Government under S.30A(1)(d) of the Act to institute the case. Thereupon, Sessions Judge discharged the petitioners. On the same day Annexure A4 complaint was filed before the Sessions Judge on the very same facts alleged in Annexure A1 complaint. Crl. M.C. 357 of 1993 is to quash Annexure A4 complaint.

(2.) Facts are similar in Crl. M.C. 633 of 1993. The complaint was originally filed before the Judicial magistrate of the First Class, Kottarakkara, Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court on 16-1-1993. Accused was discharged as it was found that the Excise Inspector did not have the competency to file the complaint. On the same day fresh complaint alleging very same facts in the earlier complaint was filed. Crl. M.C. 683 of 1993 is to quash the latter complaint.

(3.) Petitioners were discharged by the Sessions Judge and for doing so he relied on Varkey v. State of Kerala ( 1993 (1) KLT 72 ) Bench decision of this Court held that in a case where Excise Inspector had not authority to file complaint under the Act, Special Court or Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and that the Court could not have framed charge against the accused. It was also held that the trial which followed the said charge should be treated as one without jurisdiction and so it cannot lead to conviction or acquittal and hence the Court ought to have discharged the accused under S.227 CrPC.