STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. ZOLIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr T. Vaiphei, learned P.P. Mizoram. None appears for the respondent despite notice upon him as reflected from the office note dated 27/5/2002.

(2.) This application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, has been preferred by the State contending that since the offence is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') which is exclusively triable by the Special Judge, the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Champhai District has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail of the respondent. Accordingly, on the count of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Addl. District Magistrate to grant bail to the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 21 of the Act above, the bail so granted to him is liable to be cancelled. Mr Vaiphei, learned PP has trenchantly contended that the Government of Mizoram has already constituted Special Court to be presided by the Special Judge under the Act for all the Districts within the Mizoram and since the offences under the Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court, the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Champhai not being a Special Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent. It is contended that the accused-respondent was arrested on 27/9/2001 by the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Excise Station, Champhai and seized 130) grams of white powder suspected to he Heroin sequel to which a case has been registered against the accused/respondent being Excise G.R. No. 118/2001 under Section 21 of the Act. According to Mr Vaiphei since suspected Heroin of 130 grams was seized from the possession of the respondent, the offence so allegedly committed by the respondent falls under Section 21(b) of the Act. The provisions of Section 21(b) may be extracted as under :-

(3.) Upon hearing the learned P.P. I have gone through the orders dated 16.10.2001 and 22.10.2001 (Annexure-1 and 2 in this application) by which the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Champhai District granted bail to the petitioner after hearing the learned A.P.P. representing the State. From the perusal of those orders and having regard to the provisions of law laid down under the Act, it appears that the learned Addl. District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail or entertain any bail application of the respondent/accused of an offence under Section 21(b) of the Act. It also appears from the record that the learned Addl. District Magistrate has not forwarded the respondent to the Special Court having jurisdiction to try the instant case.