BAR ASSOCIATION JHABUA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By letter dated 11.10.1991, Bar Association, Sheopurkala requested the High Court to establish Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Sheopurkala or alternatively to establish a link Court at that place to deal with the cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 1989 Ad). Subsequently, a telegram was received from the Bar Association, Jhabua praying that in the absence of or during long leave of a Special Judge, Additional Sessions Judge may deal urgent bail petitions under the 1989 Act. On the direction of the Chief Justice, the letter and the telegram have been treated as Writ Petition. Notices have been issued to the learned Advocate General, President High Court Bar Association, President of the Local District Bar Association and President of the Jhabua Bar Association. Except the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the learned Advocate General, none of the other persons to whom notices have been issued, are present.

(2.) Difficulties have arisen in dealing with cases not only under the 1989 Act but also under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 1985 Act), both of which contemplate establishment of Special Courts. While Special Courts have been established in each district in the State under S.14 of the 1989 Act, Special Courts have not been established in any district under section 36 of the 1985 Act. The transitional provision in section 36D of the 1985 Act enables offences committed thereunder to be tried by Court of Sessions in the absence ofSpecial Court established under the Act. Under section 14 of the 1989 Act, the State Government is required, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, to specify in each district a Court of SessionsT to be a Special Court to try offences under that Act. Difficulties have arisen in view of the conflicting appreciation of these provisions by Sessions {Judges in the State. Reference may be made to a recent decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Cr. A. No. 645 of 1990, Ghudan v. State of M.P. The case related to conviction under the provisions of the 1985 Act by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The learned Single Judge took the view that since third Additional Sessions Judge was not Presiding Officer of a Special court constituted under section 36 of the Act of 1985, he had no jurisdiction to try the case. On this ground as also on certain other grounds, the conviction and sentence entered against the accused were set aside.

(3.) Section 14 of the 1989 Act reads as follows: For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. Section 20 states, inter-alia, that the provisions of the Act shall have over-riding effect over other laws. The effect of Section 14 of the Act is that an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act can be tried only by a T1Court of Sessions specified to be a Special Court by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice. No other court has jurisdiction to try such offences. The State Government has, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, specified for each district the Court of Sessions to be special court to try offences under the Act as seen in notification dated 30.1.1990.