1. Though the revision petitioners in all these revision petitions are different and the crimes from which these warrant cases arose are also different, the legal issue involved in these revision petitions are one and the same. Therefore, these revision petitions can be heard together and disposed of by a common order. In all these revision petitions, the respective accused are charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec.18(a) (i) read with Sec.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). The prosecution allegation against each revision petitioner is that the drugs taken from their possession are 'not of standard quality' and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.18(a)(i) read with Sec.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. But, the respective Magistrate courts committed those cases to the concerned Sessions Courts on a finding that after the commencement of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 26 of 2008) with effect from 10/08/2009, these offences are not triable by a Magistrate's Court; but shall be tried only by Sessions Courts. Consequently, these cases now stand committed to respective Sessions Court. These orders of committal to the concerned Sessions Courts are under challenge in these revision petitions.

2. Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all these revision petitions advanced arguments, assailing the impugned committal orders and pointed out the scope and extent of jurisdictional changes brought up by Act 26 of 2008. Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned Public Prosecutor advanced arguments highlighting the scope of amendment. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the courts below went wrong by committing the cases to the respective Sessions Courts under Sec.209 of the Cr.P.C. The committal order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and improper. The learned counsel drew my attention to the relevant provisions of Secs.36, 36 AB, 32, 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and placed arguments relying on these provisions. It is contended that as per Sec.36AB of the said Act, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try an offence alleging violation of Sec.18(a) (i) punishable under Sec.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and even after the said amendment, the jurisdiction to try the above offence remains with the Magistrate Court, as it was, before the amendment. As per Sec.36AB, the Special Court is constituted for trying the offences relating to adulterated drugs and spurious drugs covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.13, sub-section (3) of Sec.22, Clauses (a) and (c) of Secs.27, 28, 28A, 28B, Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec.30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs and spurious drugs.

3. The petitioners are charge sheeted for the alleged offence under Sec.18(a)(i), punishable under Sec.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the offence under Sec.18(a)(i) punishable under Sec.27(d) is conspicuously excluded from the said amendment conferring jurisdiction to Special Courts. Therefore, the trial of the offence under Sec.18(a)(i) punishable under Sec.27(d) still remains with the Magistrate's Court. Hence the committal orders passed by the learned Magistrates based on Sec.32(2), substituted by the Act 26 of 2008, is illegal and unsustainable. Moreover, the said amendment Act, without any ambiguity says that the same is applicable only prospectively with effect from 10/8/2009. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners drew my attention to the consequences thereof under the committal proceedings. The learned counsel further drew my attention to Secs.36 and 36A and submits that by various amendments, upto 2008, the power of the Magistrate Court is also enhanced so as to empower the Magistrate Court to try the offences with enhanced penalties and also to try certain offences punishable wi