IMPORTANT POINT
The remand orders passed by the Special Court at Madurai, long after it had ceased to exercise jurisdiction in cases under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are in competent. The Special Court constituted for trial of offences under the NDPS Act could not also exercise power of remand of an accused in the EC Act case; which it was doing when the Special Court constituted for the EC Act cases was in existence. Thus High Court was right in granting conditional bail to such accused in habeas corpus petitions.

Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section 7(1)(a)(ii) r/w Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984-Offences under-Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981-Special Court under-N.D.P.S. Act, 1985-Special Court under-Whether the Special Court which ceased to be a Special Court under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the NDPS Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? High Court holding "No"-But instead of granting writ of habeas corpus as prayed released the accused on bail subject to conditions, inter alia, to attend the area Magistrate before whom prosecution will proceed-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeals dismissed (Cr.P.C. 1973-Sections 167 and 309-Constitution of India-Articles 226, 136).
Held : The factual position which was not controverted before us was that the special court at Madurai constituted for trial of EC Act cases ceased to exist after October, 1998 when the last period of extension of EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed. In the present case the offences under the EC Act were alleged to have been committed by the respondents in February, 2000 long after the special court for EC Act cases had ceased to exist. The accused were arrested in the months of February and April, 2000. The cases registered against the accused were, therefore, to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act i.e. EC Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the EC Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not. It is not disputed before us that prior to enforcement of the EC (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 which was enforced on 1.9.1982 cases under the EC Act were being tried by the area Magistrates within their respective territorial jurisdiction. As noted earlier, the special courts were constituted under Section 12A of the EC (Special Provisions) Act. The said section provided, inter alia, that the State Government may for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offence under the Act by notification in the official gazette constitute as many special courts as necessary for such areas as may be specified in the notification. A Special Court shall consist of a single judge who shall be appointed by the High Court upon a request made by the State Government. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless - (a) he is qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court, or (b) he has, for a period of not less than one year, been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. On a fair reading of the above provisions it is clear that during the period the EC (Special Provisions) Act was in force the special court constituted for trial of offences under EC Act had exclusive jurisdiction to try such cases. The special court had also the power to pass order of remand under Section 167 but the position changed after the EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of time. Thereafter, the position that used to prevail before the EC (Special Provisions) Act was enforced, stood restored and the judicial magistrates who were previously competent to try the EC Act cases got the jurisdiction to deal with such cases. The position is beyond any pale of doubt that the remand orders passed by the special court at Madurai, long after it had ceased to exercise jurisdiction in cases under the EC Act are incompetent. Coming to the question whether the special Court constituted for trial of cases under the NDPS Act could exercise the power of remand of an accused in the EC Act case, which it was doing when the special court constituted for the EC Act cases was in existence, the answer to the question is in the negative; for the simple reason that the special court constituted for NDPS Act cases is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction for trial of the particular class of cases provided under the NDPS Act and it has not been vested with power of judicial Magistrate for the purpose of dealing with EC Act cases. To accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard would in our view be contrary to the scheme of things under the Criminal Procedure Code which specifically vests the power of remand under Section 167 in judicial magistrate. The High Court was, therefore, right in negativing the contention raised on behalf of the State Government in this regard. It is relevant to note here that even after holding that the remand orders were passed by the Court not competent to pass such orders, the High Court has not granted the prayer of the writ petitioners for their release but has only ordered their release on conditions as noted in the judgment. The resultant position that emerges from the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs is that the judgment of the High Court under challenge is unassailable and accordingly the appeals are dismissed. (Paras 15 to 18)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the special court which ceased to be a special court under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?

3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :

The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the EC Act ) in the year 2000. In that connection crime Nos. 3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused. They were arrested and remanded to jail. Two of the accused persons were produced before the area magistrate who remanded them to police custody and subsequently they were produced before the special court at Madurai who passed successive remand orders for their custody in jail. The third accused was directly produced before the special court and was remanded to custody by orders passed by the said Court from time to time. After the enactment of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (for short the EC (Special Provisions) Act") the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the High Court had issued a notification under Section 12-A of the EC Act (Special Provision) constituting the special courts which were empowered to try cases under the Special Commodities Act pending in various courts in the State of Tamil Nadu. In pursuance of the said Government order a District and Sessions Judge was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the special court at Madurai for trial of cases under the EC Act. Subsequently, by another Government order issued in June, 1993 the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the High Court empowered the Presiding Officer of the special courts for EC Act cases to deal with the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act ). Accordingly, the special court for EC Act cases functioning at Madurai was also assigned to try the offences under the NDPS Act within the same territorial jurisdiction.

4. The EC (Special Provisions) Act which provided for special courts under Section 12A came into force from 1.9.1982. The said Act was enforced initially for a period of 5 years and was extended for a further period of 5 years i.e. 1987 to 1992 and thereafter from 1992 to 1997. The Act was in force till 31.8.1997. Thereafter the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1997 (Central Ordinance 21 of 1997) was promulgated. As there was no enactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance, 1998 (Central Ordinance 13 of 1998) was promulgated by the President. The above two Ordinances lapsed since they were not replaced by enactments, as a result of which the special courts established for trial of EC Act cases ceased to function. The consequential position that followed was that the cases registered under the EC Act were to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was being done prior to enactment of EC (Special Provisions) Act, 1981.

5. The accused No. 4 Esakiappan was arrested in connection with crime No. 3/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CID, Civil Supplies, Tiruneveli for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, 1955 for the contravention of clause 4(i) and 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card system) Order, 1982. He was produced on 9.2.2000 before the special court under the NDPS Act at Madurai which previously was dealing with EC Act cases and he was remanded to judicial custody.

6. The dete

Click Here to Read the rest of this document