A notification issued by the State Government under Section 36 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without any express or necessarily implied power to that effect, cannot have retrospective operation.

( 1 ) PURSUANT to the order of Reference, passed on 5-11-95 by learned single Judge (Hon'ble Shri R. D. Vyas, J), these revisions, by the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, have been placed before us for resolving the question as extracted in para 4 below.

( 2 ) FACTS are in narrow compass. The State Government by a notification dated 13th February, 1997, issued under Section 36 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') constituted nine Special Courts in the State at Indore, Ujjain, Gwalior, Rewa, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Raipur, Mandsaur and Sagar for the areas indicated therein. The area indicated for each special Court, included 4 to 5 Sessions Division. The area assigned to the Special Court Ujjain consisted of Sessions Division Ujjain, Dewan, Ratlam and Shajapur, Later on by a subsequent notification dated 2nd April, 1998 the State Government in supersession of the earlier notification dated 13-2-97, constituted 45 special Courts in the State. Thus, providing one special Court for each of the 45 Sessions Divisions. Obviously, like any other special Court, the jurisdiction of Spl. Court, Ujjain was limited to the Sessions Division Ujjain only. However, the cases giving rise to the present revisions, amongst others, were pending in the Ujjain Court on the date when the subsequent notification dated 2-4-98 came into force. The Court, it appears, had already taken cognizance and framed charges in these cases. Admittedly, these cases arose from the area which now falls within the jurisdiction of special Court Ratlam. The accused persons of these cases, therefore, moved applications for transfer of their cases to special Court Ratlam on the ground that by virtue of this second notification, the Court at Ujjain ceased to have jurisdiction to try these cases. The learned special Judge however by the orders impugned, dismissed all the applications. The learned Judge was of the view that the notification dated 2-4-98 had no retrospective effect and the cases in which cognizance had already been taken, shall be continued to be tried by the Ujjain Court. The accused-petitioners thus approached this Court in revision.

( 3 ) WHEN these revisions came up before the learned single Judge, he felt bound by a decision dated 14-10-98, passed by another single Judge (Hon'ble Shri S. P. Khare, J.) of this Court at Jabalpur in Misc. Case No. 5591/98, but at the same time entertained doubt as to its correctness. The learned single Judge observed :-"prima facie I agree with the submission by the learned Advocate. Since I am bound by the single Judge Judgment dated 14-10-98 in the aforesaid Misc. Cr. Case, with which I do not agree prima facie, I would refer the matter to the Division Bench for considering the aforesaid points. "the learned single Judge has posed the controversy in following terms :-"the controversy arises whether, in the circumstances, the Court at Ujjain having the jurisdiction over the aforesaid four Districts having taken cognisance and frame charges, would still continue to exercise the jurisdiction over the Districts other than Ujjain after supersession of the Notification under which that Court was constituted whereas by subsequent Notification another Court is constituted for different areas and the jurisdiction of Ujjain Court is limited to Ujjain city only. "

( 4 ) THE inbred question is whether on coming into force of second notification dated 2-4-98, the special Courts constituted under the previous notification dated 13-2-97 were divested of the jurisdiction to try the cases already pending before those Courts on and before 2-4-98?

( 5 ) WE have heard Shri C. R. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Girish Desai, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

( 6 ) SECTION 36 of the Act, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1989, provides for constitution of Special Courts and appointment of Special Judges by the State Government with the concurrence of the