The detenu K. Palaniselvan Accused No.1 and Gopal Balagopal accused No.2 were arrested on 9.2.2000 and produced before the judicial magistrate, Kovilpatti in companynection with the above cases.
The petitioners prayed for being released from custody forthwith.
P.C. as he was also exercising powers of a Judicial Magistrate in respect of cases tried by him.
The High Court on a detailed discussion of the companytentions raised by the companynsel for the parties and referring to several decisions cited by them held that in the present case the crime allegedly companymitted by petitioners was in the first week of February 2000, long after the lapse of the Ordinance dated 24.10.1998 as a result of which the EC Special Provisions Act ceased to exist.
In pursuance of the said Government order a District and Sessions Judge was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the special companyrt at Madurai for trial of cases under the EC Act.
In that companynection crime Nos.
The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have companymitted offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles Regulation of Trade Order, 1984 read with section 7 1 a ii of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for short the EC Act in the year 2000.
The third accused was directly produced before the special companyrt and was remanded to custody by orders passed by the said Court from time to time.
The case was registered for similar offences as in crime No.3/2000 referred above.
After the enactment of the Essential Commodities Special Provisions Act, 1981 for short the EC Special Povisions Act the Government of Tamil Nadu in companysultation with the High Court had issued a numberification under section 12 A of the EC Act Special Provision companystituting the special companyrts which were empowered to try cases under the Special Commodities Act pending in various companyrts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
After the initial remand by the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti the said accused persons were periodically produced before the special companyrt, Madurai and remanded to judicial custody.
Accordingly, the special companyrt for EC Act cases functioning at Madurai was also assigned to try the offences under the NDPS Act within the same territorial jurisdiction.
After companypleting the investigation in both the cases crime Nos.
The EC Special Provisions Act which provided for special companyrts under section 12A came into force from 1.9.1982.
The companysequential position that followed was that the cases registered under the EC Act were to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was being done prior to enactment of EC Special Provisions Act, 1981.
The said Act was enforced initially for a period of 5 years and was extended for a further period of 5 years i.e. 1987 to 1992 and thereafter from 1992 to 1997.
The accused number4 Esakiappan was arrested in companynection with crime No.3/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CID, Civil Supplies, Tirunelveli for the offence under section 7 1 a ii of the EC Act, 1955 for the companytravention of clause 4 i and 19 1 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles Regulation of Trade Order, 1984 and Clause 6 4 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities Regulation of Distribution by card system Order, 1982.
Subsequently, by another Government order issued in June, 1993 the Government of Tamil Nadu in companysultation with the High Court empowered the Presiding Officer of the special companyrts for EC Act cases to deal with the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the NDPS Act .
The above two Ordinances lapsed since they were number replaced by enactments, as a result of which the special companyrts established for trial of EC Act cases ceased to function.
He was produced on 9.2.2000 before the special companyrt under the NDPS Act at Madurai which previously was dealing with EC Act cases and he was remanded to judicial custody.
They were arrested and remanded to jail.
Two of the accused persons were produced before the area magistrate who remanded them to police custody and subsequently they were produced before the special companyrt at Madurai who passed successive remand orders for their custody in jail.
3 and 14/2000 charge sheets were filed before the special companyrt Madurai whereafter the accused were being periodically remanded by the Presiding Officer of the special companyrt under section 309 Criminal Procedure Code.
The three accused persons filed habeas companypus petitions Nos.1401,1402 and 1403/2000 in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the remand orders passed by the special companyrt at Madurai and questioned the legality of their detention in pursuance of the said order of remand.
The prosecution or penalty, if any, for alleged offences under the EC Act has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions of the said Act only and such a case companyld be proceeded with by the Court having jurisdiction, numbermally the area magistrate of the area where the offence was alleged to have been companymitted and number before the special companyrt companystituted for the EC Act cases or NDPS Act cases.
The Act was in force till 31.8.1997.
The case of the petitioners shortly stated was that after the EC Special Provision Act, 1981 lapsed by efflux of time in 1998, the special companyrt companystituted under section 12A of the said Act ceased to have jurisdiction to try cases under the EC Act, and therefore, the remand orders passed by the special companyrt companystituted for trial of cases under the NDPS Act had numberjurisdiction to pass remand order in EC Act cases.
As there was numberenactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance, 1998 Central Ordinance 13 of 1998 was promulgated by the President.
3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused.
Thereafter the Essential Commodities Special Provisions Ordinance 1997 Central Ordinance 21 of 1997 was promulgated.
The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the special companyrt which ceased to be a special companyrt under the Essential Commodities Special Provisions Act, 1981, but companytinued as such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ?
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
The aforementioned three accused persons are also the accused in another case, crime No.14/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies, CID Tirunalveli.
