Holding

A special court that has lost its jurisdiction under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act cannot exercise the power of remand for offences under the Essential Commodities Act.

Summary

Special Courts were created under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 to try offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and later were also empowered to try NDPS offences. The EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed in 1998, causing those courts to lose jurisdiction over EC cases, although they continued as NDPS special courts. Three accused, alleged to have committed EC offences in 2000, were remanded by the NDPS special court. They filed habeas corpus petitions challenging the remand orders. The Madras High Court held the remand orders void for lack of jurisdiction and directed prosecution before the area magistrate. The State appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, holding that a special court that no longer functions under the EC Act cannot exercise remand powers for EC offences, even if it continues under the NDPS Act. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a special court that ceased to exist under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 but continues under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has jurisdiction to remand an accused for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167
Essential Commodities Act, 1955s. 7(1)(a)(ii)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 21
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Subjects

Special CourtJurisdictionRemandEssential Commodities ActNDPS ActHabeas CorpusCriminal Procedure

Judgment

STATE OFT AMIL NADU A
v.
PARAMASIVA PANDIAN

OCTOBER 30, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B

Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981-S.12-A-Essen-
tial Commodities Act, 1955-S. 7( 1 )(a)(ii)-Special Court-Constituted to deal
with cases under EC Act-Subsequently empowered to deal with cases under
NDPS Act also-Ceased to exercise jurisdiction under EC Act on lapse of c
Special Provisions Act but continued to exercise powers under the NDPS
Act-Remand of accused for offences under EC Act passed by the Special
Court long after lapse of EC (Special Provisions) Act and ceased to have
jurisdiction under EC Act-Correctness of-Held, orders of remand of ac-
cused by Special Court are without jurisdiction-Special Court constituted.for
trial of cases under NDPS Act has no power to exercise power under EC Act- D
High Court justified in directing prosecution of cases by area Magistrate-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 167-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985-Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of
Trade) Order, 1984.
E
Special Courts were constituted under the Essential Commodities
(Special Provisions) Act, 1981 to deal with cases under Essential Com·
modities Act, 1955 (EC Act). Subsequently, the said Special Courts were
also empowered to deal with cases under the Narcotic Drugs and
psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Special Court consti-
tuted under the EC Act ceased to exist after October, 1998 as the EC F
(Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of time. However, the said Special
Courts continued to function under the NDPS Act. Accused-respondents
were alleged to have committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential
Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with Section
7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC A<;t in the year 2000 and were arrested and remand G
orders were passed by one such Special Court. Respondents filed petitions
challenging the validity of their remand orders passed by the said Special
Court. High Court allowed the petitions holding that the remand orders
passed by the Special Court long after it ceased to exist were without
jurisdiction and directed that the appellant State may proceed with the
H
525
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A prosecution of cases before the area Magistrate. Aggrieved, the State filed
the present appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court •

HELD : 1.1. Special Court which ceased to be a Special Court under
B the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 but continued as
such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has
no power to remand an accused implicated for an offence under the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 long after it has ceased to exercise the
jurisdiction. High Court was justified in directing the appellant State to
C proceed with the case before the area Magistrate. [527-D]

1.2. During the period EC (Special Provisions) Act was in force the
Special Court constituted for trial of offences under EC Act had exclusive·
jurisdiction to try such cases. The Special Court had also the power to pass
order of remand under Section 167 of the Code but the position changed
D after EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of time. Thereafter the
position that used to prevail before the EC (Special Provisions) Act was
enforced stood restored and the Judicial Magistrates who were previously
competent to try cases under the EC Act got the jurisdiction to deal with
such cases. [532-H; 533-A]
E
1.3. In the instant case, the offence under the EC Act were alleged to
have been committed by the respondents in the year 2000 long after the ·
Special Court for cases under the EC Act had ceased to exist in the yea.r
1998. Consequently, the cases registered against the accused were to be
dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act i.e. EC
F Act, 1955 by the area Magistrates. Thus, the remand orders passed by the
Special Court under the EC Act are incompetent. [532-C]

1.4. The Special Court constituted for cases under the NDPS Act is a
Court of exclusive jurisdiction for trial of the particular classes of cases
G provided under the NDPS Act and it has not been vested with power of
judicial Magistrates for the purpose of dealing with EC Act cases. Thus,
the Special Court constituted for trial of cases under the NDPS Act cannot
,AJ. •
exercise the power of remand of an accused in a case under the EC Act
which it was doing when the Special Court constituted for cases under the
I·.
EC Act was in existence. [533-C] ·
H
STATE v. PARAMASIVA PANDIAN [MOHAPATRA, J.] 527
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1091- A
1093 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2000 of the Madras High Court
in H.C.P. Nos. 1401-1403 of 2000.

T.L.V. Iyer, Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Shweta Garg and V.G. Pragasam for B
the Appellant.

S. Sivasubramanian, Senthil Jagdeesan and V. Ramasubramanian for the
Respondent.
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.

The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the
special court which ceased to be a special court under the Essential Commodi-
ties (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the Narcotic ·D
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 ?

The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may
E
be stated thus :

The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have
committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation
of Trade) Order, 1984 read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodi-
ties Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') in the year 2000. In that connection F
crime Nos. 3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused. 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 subse-
quently they were produced before the special court at Madurai who passed
successive remand orders fot their custody in jail. The third accused was
directly produced before the special court and was remanded to custody by G
orders passed by the said Court from time to time. After the enactment of the
Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (for short 'the EC (Spe-
cial Povisions) Acf') the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the
High Court had issued a notification under section 12-A of the EC Act (Special
Provision) constituting the special courts which were empowered to try cases H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A under the Special Commodities Act pending in various courts in the State of
Tamil Nadu. In pursuance of the said Government order a District and Sessions
Judge was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the special court at Madurai for
,..
trial of cases under the EC Act. Subsequently, by another Government order
issued in June, 1993 the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the
High Court empowered the Presiding Officer of the special courts for EC Act
B
cases to deal with the.cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-
stances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). Accordingly, the special coUrt
for EC Act cases functioning at Madurai was also assigned to try the offences
under the NDPS Act within the same territorial jurisdiction.

c The EC(Special Provisions) Act which provided for special courts under
section 12A came into force from 1.9.1982. 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 arid thereafter from 1992 to 1997. The Act was in force till
31.8.1997. Thereafter the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordi-
nance 199.7 (Central Ordinance 21 of 1997) was promulgated. As there was
D no enactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance, 1998 (Cen-
tral Ordinance 13 of 1998) wa8 promulgated by the President. The above two
Ordinances lapsed since they were not replaced by enactments, as a result of
which the special courts established for trial of EC Act cases ceased to function.
The consequential position that followed was that the cases registered under
E 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 accused no.4 Esakiappan was arrested in connection 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 contraven-
F tion 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 NaduEssential
Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card system) Order, 1982. He was
produced on 9.2.2000 before the special court under the NDPS Act at Madurai
which previously was dealing with EC Act cases and he was remanded to
G judicial custody.

The detenu K. Palaniselvan (Accused No.I) and Gopal @ Balagopal
(accused No.2) were arrested on 9.2.2000 and produced before the judicial
magistrate, Kovilpatti in connection with the above cases. After the initial
remand by the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti the said accused persons were
H periodically produced before the special court, Madurai and remanded to
STATE v. PARAMASIVA PANDIAN [MOHAPATRA, J.] 529
judicial custody. The aforementioned three accused persons are also the A
accused in another case, crime No.14/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police
Civil Supplies, CID Tirunalveli. The case was registered for similar offences
as in crime No.3/2000 referred above. After completing the investigation in
both the cases (crime Nos. 3 and 14/2000) charge-sheets were filed before the
special court Madurai whereafter the accused were being periodically re-
B
, · mantled by the Presiding Officer of the special court under section 309 Crimi-
nal Procedure Code.

The three accused persons filed habeas corpus petitions Nos.1401,1402
and 1403/2000 in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the
remand orders passed by the special court at Madurai and .questioned the c
legality of their detention in pursuance of the said order of remand. The case
of the petitioners shortly stated was that after the EC(Special Provision) Act,
1981 lapsed by efflux of time iil 1998, the special court constituted 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 th~ special court consti-
D
tuted for trial of cases under the NDPS Act had no jurisdiction to pass remand
order in EC Act cases. Thus the successive orders of remand passed by the
special court under the NDPS Act at Madurai being without jurisdiction were
invalid and the detention of the petitioners on the basis of such orders was
illegal. The petitioners prayed for being released from custody forthwith.
E
The case of the State of Tamil Nadu as appears from the discussions in
the Judgment of the High Court was that though the special court at Madurai
constituted for trial of EC Act cases ceased to exist after 1998 when the EC
(Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of time, the Presiding Officer of the
special court for trial of NDPS Act cases at Madurai who was also a Sessions F
Judge had power to pass the orders of remand under section 167 of the Cr.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 contentions raised by the
counsel for the parties and referring to s~veral decisions cited by them-held that G
\ in the present case the crime allegedly committed 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. 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 H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [20011SUPP.4 S.C.R.
A case could be proceeded with by the Court having jurisdiction, normally the
area magistrate of the area where the offence was alleged to have been
committed and not ·before. the special court constitµted for the EC Act cases or
NDPS-Act cases. The High Court also observed th~t th~ area magistrates were
functioning in the area in which the offence was alteged to have been commit-
ted and further that no powers of a magistr:ate under the Code of Criminal
B
Procedure has been .conferred on a special court or the Presiding Officer of
special Court at Madurai.

The High Court summed up its findings in the following words:

"But in this case ~ already pointed out it is ciear neither on the date
c · of first remand nor on the date of subsequent extension, or taking
. cognizance, nor as on date ther~ is legai ·order of remand or extension .
'of re~and' at all by the Special Court for' Essential Commodities Act
casC?s Madurai which ceased to exist long ago and as it Is riot a validly
constituted court or Magistrate its orders and proceedings are without
D jurisdiction. Hence, the reliance pfaced upon the above pronounce-
ment is of no consequence or assistance, nor it could be considered as ·
a mere irregularity as sought to be made out.
. .

In the foregoing circumstances ·the order of r9Dand and the
extension of the remand of the detenus f~om time to time are without
E jurisdiction, such order cannot be continu~d and there should naturally
· be a direction to the respondent herein as well as the Superintenderit
of the concerned Jails namely Central Jail, Vellore, Central Jail,
Palayamkottai, 'Central jail, Trichirapalli, to set the three detenus at
··liberty.
F· .
Though the detenus as already held are in remand which remand
.
is being without jurisdiction ordinarily the detenl!s should be set at
. liberfy. However, in the interest of justice and on the facts in the case
instead of setting the detenus at liberty and thereafter allowing the
.respondent to go before the concerned Magistrate, to avoid delay.and
G technical objections and to render substantial justice, we ·hold that thi~
is imminently a fit case. where this Court would be justified in enlarg-
ing the detenus on bail as in two cases initially there was a valid order
, of remand by the area Magistrate and in the .third casee'V-en though
there was· no remand by the;area Magistrate and the remand .was made
by the Speciai Court at the first instance: But ~n that score. it would

.r
STATE v. PARAMASIVA PANDIAN [MOHAPATRA, J.] 531
not be proper for us to treat the third case as differently and to give A
a disposal differently."

Allowing the Habeas Corpus petition the High Court passed the follow-
ing order:

"On the facts of the case instead of issuing a writ of habeas corpus we B
are of the considered view that the detenus herein would very well be
ordered to be released on bail which would· subserve the interest of
justice.

In the circumstances, while following the Supreme Court judgment in
State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1441 we c
direct the three detenus namely ( 1) Isakkiappan (ii) Palani Selvam and
(iii) Gopal @ Balagopal, respectively in remand at the Central Jail,
Vellore, Central Jail, Palayamkottai and Central Jail, Trichirapalli shall
be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-
D
xxx xxx xxx

It is made ·clear that it is oi>en to the detenus to attend the area
Magistrate before which Courts the respo.ndent may proceed with the ·
prosecution of cases for violation of Essential Commodities Act."
E
The said judgment/order is under challenge in these appeals.

Shri T.LV.Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the Presiding Officer of the special Court at Madurai which was
initially constituted for trial of cases under the EC Act and subsequently
entrusted with the cases under the NDPS Act might have ceased for the F
purpose of trial of EC Act cases after the Ordinance lapsed in October, 1998
but the special court continued to exercise powers under the NDPS Act, and
since the Presiding Officer of the said court was a Sessions Judge who was
exercising powers of a judicial Magistrate he could pass the order of remand
even when he had no jurisdiction to try cases under the EC Act. Alternatively, G
Shri Iyer contended that the defect, if any, in the remand order was curable and
no writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention could be passed in
the facts and circumstances of the case.

Per contra Mr. S. Sivasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A· conelusion drawn by the High Court in the judgment under challenge that the
remand order passed by the special court at Madurai was without jurisdiction,
and therefore, illegal, is unassailable. The High Court according to Sri
Sivasubramanian has given cogent reasons in support of its findings/ccmclu-
sions.

The factual position which was not controverted before us was that the
special court.at Madurai constitute~ for trial of EC Act cases ceased to exist
after October, 1998 when the last period of extension of EC (Special Provi-
sions) Act lapsed. In the present case the offences under the EC Act were
alleged to have been committed by the respondent~ ~in February, 2000 long
c af•er the special court for EC Act cases had ceased to exist. The accused were
arrested in .the months of February .and April, 2000. The cases registered
against the accused were, therefore, to be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of the principal.Act i.e. EC Act, 1955 and section 11 of the EC Act
provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under
this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence
D
made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian
Penal Co.de or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association,
whether such person is amember of that association or not. It is not disputed
before us that prior to enforcement of the EC (Special Provisions) Act, 1981
which was enforced on 1.9.1982 cases under the EC Act were being tried by
the area Magistrates within their respective territorial jurisdiction. As noted
earlier, the special courts were constituted under section l 2A of the EC (Special
Provisions) Act.· The said section provided, inter. alia, that the State Govern-
ment may for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offence under the
Act by notification in the official gazette constitute as many special courts as
necessary for such areas as may be, specified in the notification, A Special
Court shall consist of a single judge who shall be appointed by the High Court
upon a request made by the State Government. A person shall not be qualified
for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless (a) he is qualified for
appointment as a judge of a High Court, or (b) he has, for a period of not less
than one year, been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge.
G r. ,·

On a fair reading of the above provisions it is clear that during the period (
the EC (Special Provisions) Act was in force the special court constituted for
trial of offences under EC Act had exclusive jurisdiction to try such cases. The
special court had also the power to pass order of remand under section 167 but
H the position changed after the EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of
STATEv. PARAMASIVAPANDIAN[MOHAPATRA,J.] 533
time. Thereafter, the position that used to prevail before the EC ·(Special A
Provisions) Act was enforced, stood restored and the judicial magistrates who
were previously competentto try the EC Act cases got the jurisdiction to deal
with such cases. The positio~...is beyond any pale of doubt that the remand
orders passed by the special court at Madurai, long after it had ceased to
exercise jurisdiction in cases under the EC Act are incompetent.
B
Coming to the question whether the special Court constituted for trial of
cases under the NDPS Act could exercise the power of remand of an accused
in the EC Act case, which it was doing when the special court constituted for
the EC Act cases was in existence, the answer to the question is in the negative;
for the simple reason that the special court constituted for NDPS Act cases is c
a Court of exclusive jurisdiction for trial of the particular class of cases
provided under the NDPS Act and it has not been vested with power of judicial
Magistrate for the purpose of dealing with EC Act cases. To accept the con-
tention raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard would in our view be
contrary to the scheme of things under the Criminal Procedure Code which
specifically vests the power of remand under section 167 in judicial magistrate. D
The High Court was, therefore, right in negativing the contention raised on
behalf of the State Government in this regard. It is relevant to note here that
even after holding that the remand orders were passed by the Court not
competent to pass such orders, the High Court has not granted the prayer of
the writ petitioners for their release but has only ordered their release' on E
conditions as noted in the judgment.

The resultant position that emerges from the discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs is that the judgment of the High Court under challenge is unassail-
able and accordingly the appeals are dismissed. ·
F
S.V.K. Appeals dismissed.