The court clarified the jurisdiction of lower courts, emphasized the powers of revision and transfer under CrPC, and established the authority to rectify erroneous orders and transfer cases for the ends of justice.

K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

1. This Crl.M.C. has arisen on the basis of a reference made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha in respect of C.C. 131 of 1993 pending before that court under S.395 of the CrPC.

2. The Excise Inspector, Adimaly filed a complaint against 11 accused persons alleging offences punishable under S.20(a)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and S.55(c) of the Abkari Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adimaly. The allegation against the accused was that on 12-10-1989 at 11.30 a.m. they were found engaged in the cultivation of ganja. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly took the complaint on file and after preliminary enquiry committed the case to the Court of Session, Thodupuzha by order dated 18-6-1991 in C. P. 13/91.

3. The Sessions Court though took the case on file and registered as S. C. 121/91 found that no offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act was made out in the case since the detection and seizure was made on 12-10-1989 prior to the date on which the Act was made operative on 13-12-1989. But the Sessions Court however found that the facts in the case disclosed an offence punishable under S.55(c) of the Kerala Abkari Act and made over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court directing to frame charge against the accused under S.55(c) of the Abkari Act and to try and dispose of the case. The C.J.M., Thodupuzha registered the case as C. C. 131/93.

4. As it was contended before the C.J.M. that in view of the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas (1995 (2) KLT 873) to the effect that the provisions of S.55 of the Abkari Act relating to the N.D.P.S. Act have been impliedly repealed by the N.D.P.S. Act and therefore the C.J.M. is not competent to proceed with the trial of the case alleging offence punishable under S.55(c) of the Abkari Act, and since the case was already committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court after finding that no offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act is made out and offence punishable under S.55(c) of the Abkari Act is made out, made over the case for trial and dispose to the C.J.M.'s Court, the C.J.M. is not competent to commit the case once again to the Court of Session in view of the decision in State of Kerala v. Vijayan (1977 KLT 458), the C.J.M. made the above reference before this Court. As directed by this Court to post the matter on the Judicial side, the above Crl.M.C. has been registered.

5. At the very outset it has to be pointed out that by notification No. S. O. 379(E) dated 29-5-1989 published in the Gazette of India, Extra, Part II, the Central Government made 29-5-1989 as the appointed date for the N.D.P.S. ct to come into force in the whole of India. The provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act came into force and became operative on 29-5-1989 and not on 13-12-1989 as stated by the learned Sessions Judge. Since the detection of offence and seizure in this case was on 12-10-1989 long after the date of commencement of the N.D.P.S. Act on 29-5-1989, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that since the detection of offence and seizure in this case was made prior to the commencement of the N.D.P.S. Act, no offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act is made out, is patently wrong, illegal and unsustainable.

6. In the decision in State of Kerala v. Thomas (1995 (2) KLT 873) a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the provisions contained in S.55 of the Abkari Act relating to narcotic drugs have been impliedly repealed by the N.D.P.S. Act and therefore, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing ganja, a narcotic drug coming within the scope of N.D.P.S. Act. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations made by the learned single Judge and therefore it has to be held that the C.J.M. has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under S.55(c) of the Abkari Act and proceed with the trial in this case.

7. The next po