Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J.
Sojith – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1044 OF 2024
Decided On : 16-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.V.Manuvilsan, O.A.Anju, Harkishan K.P., Surabhi R., Naeem Ibrahim, Vrinda Lakshmanan
For the Respondent: Sri.G.Sudheer, Public Prosecutor.
IMPORTANT POINT
A charge framed by a court lacking jurisdiction is invalid, but if no prejudice or failure of justice is shown, the trial can continue based on evidence recorded by a competent court.
Headnote:
Narcotics - Charge Framing - Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 36, 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 464, 465 of Cr.PC - The court emphasized the necessity of jurisdiction in charge framing and the absence of prejudice to the accused in the trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after being found in possession of ganja. The initial charge was framed by a court lacking jurisdiction, leading to a revision petition challenging the validity of the charge and the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial charge was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, but the evidence recorded by the competent Special Court was valid, and the accused did not suffer any prejudice during the trial.
Issues: Whether the charge framed by a non-special court invalidates the trial and whether the accused suffered any prejudice due to the charge framing process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a charge framed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, but if the accused does not demonstrate prejudice or failure of justice, the trial can proceed based on evidence recorded by a competent court.
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
K.BABU, J.
The challenge in this revision at the instance of the accused is to the order framing a fresh charge by the Trial Court.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.C No.253/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam. He is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case is that on 09.03.2016 at about 3.50 p.m, the revision petitioner/accused was found in conscious possession of 1.137 Kgs of ganja near Kammoth Library.
4. The Panangad Police registered Crime No. No.353/2016. The Police completed the investigation and submitted the final report before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, a Court notified under Sections 36 and 36A of the Act. The Sessions Court made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam, which was not a Court notified under Sections 36 and 36A of the Act. That Court proceeded with the case and heard the prosecution and the accused under 227 Cr.PC. The accused filed an application seeking discharge. The Court dismissed the application and framed the charge against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Act. The Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as per order No.16831/2021 dated 25.01.2022, transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Court-VII, which is a notified Court (the Trial Court).
5. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial. Witnesses were examined. The matter was heard under Section 232 Cr.PC. The accused was called upon to lead evidence, if any. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the case was taken up for judgment.
6. On perusal of the records, the Trial Court found that the Court which framed the charge had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore, the Trial Court held that a fresh charge is to be framed against the accused.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the Court that framed the charge had no jurisdiction to try the case, the charge framed by it against the accused is a nullity, and therefore, the evidence recorded by the Trial Court cannot be acted upon. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused was not given the opportunity to seek discharge. The learned counsel also submitted that the Trial Court should have acquitted the accused under Section 232 Cr.PC, as there was no evidence in the eye of law. It is further submitted that with the framing of a fresh charge, the accused is compelled to face a fresh trial.
9. As per Section 36 of the Act, to provide speedy trial of the offences under the Act, the Government may constitute Special Courts for such area or areas as specified in the notification. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a Special Court unless he is, immediately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. As per Section 36A of the Act, all offences under the Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed.
10. The Police submitted the final report before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which was notified as a Special Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the offence has been committed. The Sessions Court, Ernakulam, transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Court -VI, which is not a Court notified as above. The Additional Sessions Court-VI, which had no jurisdiction to try the offence under the Act, framed the charge against the accused. Thereafter, the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Court-VII (the Trial Court), a Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed.
11. Admittedly, the Court which framed the charge (Additional Sessions Cour
