SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Raj) 686

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohini Kapur, J.
Mul Chand - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 539 of 1992.
Decided On : 4-05-1992

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Sunil Mehrish, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B.L. Avasthi, P.P.

Offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are to be tried by a Special Court or a Sessions Judge, and there is no provision for a Magistrate to take cognizance or try the accused.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - The court held that offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are to be tried by a Special Court or a Sessions Judge, and there is no provision for a Magistrate to take cognizance or try the accused. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was charged with offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and was arrested. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case, but the petitioner contended that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to try the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to try the offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, and therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was quashed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are to be tried by a Special Court or a Sessions Judge, and there is no provision for a Magistrate to take cognizance or try the accused.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was quashed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond.

JUDGMENT

1. - Challan for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act was presented by the A.P.P. before M.J.M. Sangod district Kota. On this, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 6th April, 1992. The petitioner had been arrested on 9th January, 1992.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and triable by Special Court to be constituted by the Government and a person who is a Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge is alone is qualified for appointment. Under Section 36(d) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, the offences committed under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act prior to the constitution of the Special Court are to be tried by court of Sessions Judge. There is no provision under which the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offences or try the accused. Hence, cognizance taken by the Magistrate deserves to be quashed. The petitioner shall be released. However, ho shall give a personal bond for Rs. 5000/- undertaking to remain at the address given by him, in the petition and that the will appear in the court in which he may be asked to appear in case challan is filed before the proper court.Petition allowed.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top