BARJI AND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order of Reference, passed on 5-11-95 by learned single Judge (Hon'ble Shri R. D. Vyas, J), these revisions, by the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, have been placed before us for resolving the question as extracted in para 4 below.

(2.) Facts are in narrow compass. The State Government by a notification dated 13th February, 1997, issued under Section 36 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') constituted nine Special Courts in the State at Indore, Ujjain, Gwalior, Rewa, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Raipur, Mandsaur and Sagar for the areas indicated therein. The area indicated for each special Court, included 4 to 5 Sessions Division. The area assigned to the Special Court Ujjain consisted of Sessions Division Ujjain, Dewan, Ratlam and Shajapur, Later on by a subsequent notification dated 2nd April, 1998 the State Government in supersession of the earlier notification dated 13-2-97, constituted 45 special Courts in the State. Thus, providing one special Court for each of the 45 Sessions Divisions. Obviously, like any other special Court, the jurisdiction of Spl. Court, Ujjain was limited to the Sessions Division Ujjain only. However, the cases giving rise to the present revisions, amongst others, were pending in the Ujjain Court on the date when the subsequent notification dated 2-4-98 came into force. The Court, it appears, had already taken cognizance and framed charges in these cases. Admittedly, these cases arose from the area which now falls within the jurisdiction of special Court Ratlam. The accused persons of these cases, therefore, moved applications for transfer of their cases to special Court Ratlam on the ground that by virtue of this second notification, the Court at Ujjain ceased to have jurisdiction to try these cases. The learned special Judge however by the orders impugned, dismissed all the applications. The learned Judge was of the view that the notification dated 2-4-98 had no retrospective effect and the cases in which cognizance had already been taken, shall be continued to be tried by the Ujjain Court. The accused-petitioners thus approached this Court in revision.

(3.) When these revisions came up before the learned single Judge, he felt bound by a decision dated 14-10-98, passed by another single Judge (Hon'ble Shri S. P. Khare, J.) of this Court at Jabalpur in Misc. Case No. 5591/98, but at the same time entertained doubt as to its correctness. The learned single Judge observed :-