The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exercising judicial discretion and following the legal provisions regarding bail and taking cognizance of the offence.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been filed for the setting aside of the orders dated 4-8-2003, 13-8-2003, 2-9-2003, 19-9-2003, 7-10-2003 and 29-10-2003, for the release of the accused-revisionist on bail and for any such order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice, mainly on the grounds inter alia that the Sessions Judge/special Judge, Auraiya wrongly, incorrectly, whimsically, illegally and indiscreetly passed the above-mentioned orders in the special case No. 51 of 2003 State v. Rizwan Ali alias Raja under Section 18 and 20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising out of the crime No. 577 of 2003 pertaining to the police station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused revisionist, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

( 3 ) SUB Clause (d) of Section 36a of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act deals with the taking of the cognizance of the offence. This clause reads as under: (d) a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon a com-plaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in this behalf take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.

( 4 ) THE Sessions Judge/special Judge, Auraiya on 4-8-2003 passed the order which is reproduced as under:

AADESH PATRA AAJ YEH AAROP PATRA ABHIYUKT RIZ WAN ALl URF RAJA KE VIRUDH DHARA 18/20 NDPS. KE UNTERGAT PRASTUT KIYA GAYA! AAROP PATRA KE SAATH FARD BARAMDGI KE PRATHAM SUCHNA REPORT ROZNAMCHA AAM, NAKSHA NAZRI, MAAL BARAMDGI KA VIDHI VIGYAN PRAYOGSHALA LUCKNOW SE PRAPTI KI CHITHIYA, NATIJA PRAYOGSHALA ABHI PRAPT NAHI HUA HAl, JISKE DUARA PRATHAM DRASHTYA PRAMANIT NAHI HAl KI ABHIYUKT SE KATHIT VASTU KYA THI! CASE DIARY BHI PRASTUS KI GAYI HAIl SABHI ABHILEKHO SE DRASHTIGAT RAKHTE HUE IS PRAKARAN KA SANGYAN ATEDDUARA LIYA JATA HAl! MUKADMA PANJIKRAT HO ! NAKLAIN A VILAMB TAIYAR KARAI JAI I ABHIYUKT JAIL SE DINANK 11-8-2003 KO TALAB HO! HASTAKSHAR/satra NAYAYADHEESH/vishesh NAYAYADHEESH, AURAIYA 4-8-2003

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the learned Special Judge has categorically mentioned in the above order that it is not prima facie certified/established in the absence of the Chemical Exami-ners report as to what matter/substance was found allegedly in possession of the accused-revisionist and yet he took cognizance of the alleged offence without exercising his judicial discretion. This is, according to him, something astoni-shing, startling and surprising and there-fore, the above order dated 4-8-2003 regar-ding taking cognizance of the alleged offence is wholly illegal and injudicious. The learned Additional Government Advocate did not express anything in the course of his arguments, otherwise than this. Therefore, it may be mentioned without ventilating anything on the merits of the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist that his above contention goes uncontradicted. Sub-section 2 of Section 309 Cr. P. C. reads as under: (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has, on the basis of the above sub-section, argued that the learned Special Judge should, by a warrant, have remanded the accused revisionist after allegedly taking cognizance of the alleged offence because the accused-revisionist was allegedly in custody and that what he Special Judge appears (sick matter) Annexure 4 at pages 22, 23 respectively on the record:

ABHIRAKSHA MA