LAWS(J&K)-2016-9-3

BANU ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

Decided On September 22, 2016
Banu Enterprises Appellant
V/S
State Of J AndK And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua i.e. designated Court, under Sec. 36-AB of 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is designated only for the purpose of conducting trial under the provisions of the Act ibid and not for taking cognizance, which jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Sec. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel further contended that the aforementioned position was clear on bare reading of Sec. 36-AD(1) of the Act ibid, which provides that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before a Special Court and that for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. Sections 36AB, 36AD of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sec. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel contends that there is no provision under 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 where under the power to take cognizance for offences under the Act has been vested in the designated Court i.e. the Court of Sessions unlike under 'the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Reference in that context is made to Sec. 36-A(1)(d) of NDPS Act, which reveals that under the provisions of NDPS Act, the Sessions Court also has the competence to take cognizance of the offence.Aforementioned provisions of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case titled 'Gangula Ashok and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh' reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 740 in support of his submission. Relevant extract of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-