LAWS(RAJ)-1998-7-32

ARVIND KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On July 01, 1998
Arvind Kumar and Anr. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated Feb. 19, 1998 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases/Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota (for short the trial court) whereby the charges under Sections 25-A and Sec. 8/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) have been framed against the accused petitioners. The only argument advanced by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate is that the learned trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. During the course of arguments, the objection is respect of jurisdiction was raised but it was not properly appreciated and the accused petitioners have been charged under the said offences. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel canvassed that under subsection (2) of Sec. 36 of the Act, the State Government on March 4, 1994 issued Notification No. F.2(10) Nyay/86, which reads as under:

(2.) Another Notification under sub clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 36-A of the Act was issued which reads as under:

(3.) Sub-Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 36-A a unequivocally lays down* that fit case there are more than one Special Courts for an area then the offence under the Act shall be tried only by such one of them who has been specified in this behalf by the State Government. The language of sub-clause (a) of,subjection (1-) of Sec. 36-A is in pari materia with the language of sub-section (2) of Sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 which deals with trials under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the language of the two sub-Clauses is exactly same, the interpretation under Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1952 becomes relevant. Incidentally the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. J.P. Sharma and others reported in 1983 Cr.L.J. 858 has dilated on the scope of sub-clause in question. In para 13 of the judgment the Division Bench has held that the case can be tried only by such one of the Special Judges who has been specified in that behalf by the State Government.