INDER RAJ Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of charge framed against the petitioner under section 317 Essential Commodities Act by the 1st. Addi. Sessions Judge Srinagar, this revision petition bas been filed challenging the jurisdiction of the court to frame the charge. It is stated that the trial court was not a court constituted under terms of section 12(aa) of the Essential Commodities Act which according to the petitioner provided that all offences under the Act were to be tried by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed or whore she are more Special Court than one by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) Mr. Rounga the learned G.A. bas taken a preliminary objection by canvassing that the revision petition was misconceived in as much as the same was directed against the interlocutory order. I fear I cannot agree with the argument of the learned G.A. because the petitioner in the instant case has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court and if his plea is accepted, the same would result in the termination of the proceedings and an order of termination of the proceedings cannot be termed as interlocutory order. However I find force in the argument of Mr. Rounga that as the petitioner has not raised this objection before the trial court, the order impugned should not be interfered with unless the objection is raised before the trial court regarding the jurisdiction and particulars are furnished by both the parties with respect to their contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however produced before me some notification dated 4-4-1985 to show that the trial court was not a designated court under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore did not have the jurisdiction to try the petitioner. The aforesaid notification was issued after the impugned order was passed and it has not been pointed out to whether there existed any order prior in time regarding the constitution of the Special Court under the provisions of E.C. Act, if so required, at the relevant time.