The trial court has jurisdiction to try a case under the NDPS Act, 1985, even if the State Government has not specified a particular Special Judge to hold the trial, as long as the error of jurisdiction does not cause a failure of justice.

1. - Instant miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated Feb. 19, 1998 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases/Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota (for short the trial court) whereby the charges under Sections 25-A and Section 8/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) have been framed against the accused petitioners. The only argument advanced by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate is that the learned trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. During the course of arguments, the objection is respect of jurisdiction was raised but it was not properly appreciated and the accused petitioners have been charged under the said offences. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel canvassed that under subsection (2) of Section 36 of the Act, the State Government on March 4, 1994 issued Notification No. F.2(10) Nyay/86, which reads as under:

"ukjdksfVd M~Xl ,.M lkbZdksV~ksfid lCLVsUl ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk (2) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky; la0 1 ,oa la[;k 2] ftyk dksVk ds ihBklhu vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa dk fooj.k djus okys mDr U;k;ky;ksa ds fof'k"B U;k;k/kh'k fu;qfDr djrh gSA"

2. Another Notification under sub clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Act was issued which reads as under:

"ukjdksfVd M~Xl ,.M lkbZdksV~ksfid lCLVsUl ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky; la0 1 ,oa la[;k 2 dksVk dh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa ds ckjs esa viuh {ks=h; lhekvksa esa vf/kdkfjrk okys fo'ks"k U;k;ky; fofufnZ"V djrh gSA"

3. Sub-Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36-A a unequivocally lays down* that fit case there are more than one Special Courts for an area then the offence under the Act shall be tried only by such one of them who has been specified in this behalf by the State Government. The language of sub-clause (a) of,subjection (1-) of Section 36-A is in pari materia with the language of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 which deals with trials under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the language of the two sub-Clauses is exactly same, the interpretation under Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1952 becomes relevant. Incidentally the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Dr. J.P. Sharma and others reported in 1983 Cr.L.J. 858 has dilated on the scope of sub-clause in question. In para 13 of the judgment the Division Bench has held that the case can be tried only by such one of the Special Judges who has been specified in that behalf by the State Government.

4. The above quoted Notifications do not contain specifications vis-a-vis a particular Special Judge for holding the trial. Unless the State Government specifies the Special Judge who would hold the trial, the trial if conducted by ., any unspecified Judge shall be without jurisdiction Mr. Bajwa contended.

5. Mr Bajwa, learned counsel further contended that a distinction of course is to be drawn regarding a case in which objection regarding lack of jurisdiction is taken during the trial. In the case on hand, the petitioners had raised specific objection regarding lack of jurisdiction, but the learned trial court dismissed the objection vide its order dated April 2, 1997. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Legal Aid committee v. Union of India (1994 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 639) . It was then argued that in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court, the Special Judge. NDPS Act Cases/Add I. Sessions Judge, No. 2 Kots has not been properly quoted as Special Judge to hold trial of the case in question.

6. On the other hand. Mr. M.L. Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial by the learned trial court is not vitiated as failure of justice is not shown by the accused petitioners.

7. I have reflected over th