The main legal point established is that complaints filed by officers must be specifically authorized by the State Government to be valid under the N.D.P.S. Act.

Sreedharan J.

These matters came up before us on reference made by a learned Single Judge. The question raised is whether the complaint filed by an Excise Inspector for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act", is maintainable or not.

2. The short facts in Criminal Appeal 95 of 1991 are as follows. On 19-12-1989, a Preventive Officer of the Excise Department seized 500 gms. of Ganja kept in 174 packets and another quantity of 20 gms. from the possession of the accused. Consequently, Preventive Officer arrested the accused. After complying with the formalities, a complaint for offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. The learned Magistrate entertained that complaint as C.P. 2 of 1990. It was then committed to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, where it was numbered as S.C. 125/1990. In support of the complaint, prosecution examined P.Ws.I to 5, proved Exhibits P1 to P6 and got MOs.I to 4 marked. After appreciating the evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He was thereupon sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was

directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 8 months. Accused challenges the conviction and sentence.

3.The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant is that Pw-5, the Excise Inspector who filed the complaint. Exhibit P4. was not authorised by the State Government to file the complaint under Section 36-A(1)(d) of the N.D.P.S. Act. So. the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is also contended by him that the Preventive Officer of Excise. who seized the narcotic substance from the accused. was not authorised under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act to search. seize or arrest under that provision. So, it was argued that Pw-1. the Preventive Officer. exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him. On these grounds it was submitted that the conviction entered by the court below is unsustainable and so accused is entitled to an acquittal.

4. Circumstances under which Criminal R.C.62/1991 happened to be registered by this Court are as follows.- On 18-8-1990 at about 8.00 a.m.. Preventive Officer of Excise. Ernakulam found the accused in possession of 67.5 gms. of Ganja, contained in 27 small packets of 2.5 gms. each. It was kept by him in his house-bearing door No.26/179 of Konthuruthy Desom, Elamkulam Village. After arresting the accused and seizing the substance. and completing the investigation. Excise Inspector. Ernakulam Range filed a complaint against the accused for offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. That complaint was filed before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Ernakulam.. Learned Magistrate committed that case to the Sessions Court. where it was entertained as S.C.157 of 1990. On the side of the prosecution. Pws.1 to 5 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P7 were proved and MOs.I series were marked. Accused got Exhibits D1 and D2 marked on his side. After appreciating the evidence. the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The correctness of the said order of acquittal is in issue in this revision.

5. Section 36-A (1)(d) of the N.D.P.S. Act reads:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974).

(d) a Special Court may. upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon a complaint made -by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf. take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial".

This provision makes it clear that a Special Court may take cognizance of the offence on a police