CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.869 OF 2007 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2007 and 31.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, West Champaran, Bettiah in Trial No.32 of 2002. PARAS MAHTO………………………………………………………………………Appellant Versus THE UNION OF INDIA………………………………………………………Respondent CR. APP (SJ) No.967 of 2007 MANOJ PATEL……………………………………………………………………Appellant Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR………………………………………Respondent ---- For the appellants:- Sri Ansul, Advocate For the Union of India:- Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey,C.G.C. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA Dharnidhar Jha,J. On bare perusal of the judgment which is being impugned herein what appears is that the same was rendered by an officer who was officiating as Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.II, Bettiah. 2. If one peruses the relevant provisions of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, thats, Section 36A one may find that the offences which are punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable by the Special Courts to be constituted by the State Government under Section 2 36 of the Act. It is further explained by Section 36-C of the Act which indicates that the Special Court shall be the court of Sessions and the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor. As regards the qualification of a Judge for being appointed as a Judge in the Special Court, the relevant provision is Section 36 sub-Section 3 which indicates that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of Special Court unless he is, immediately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. It is not necessary to point out that an officer who presides over a Fast Track Court is not the Additional Sessions Judge he has merely been directed to officiate as such, because an Additional Sessions Judge has duly to be appointed in the light of the Constitutional provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution of India to exercise jurisdiction in the Courts of Sessions as per Section-9 Cr.P.C. 3. On perusal of the lower court records what I find is that the proceeding from the stage of framing of charges up to recording the statement of the appellant was carried out by an Additional Sessions Judge but the judgment was 3 delivered by an officiating Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bettiah (West Champaran) which vitiates the very judgment itself. 4. In the light of the above discussion the judgment by which the appellant was convicted sentenced is hereby set aside on account of lack of jurisdiction in the officer to pass it and the matter is remanded back to the Sessions Judge, Bettiah for re-trial, who is directed either himself to deliver the judgment after hearing the parties or make the case over to any Additional Sessions Judge duly appointed in that capacity for re-trial from the stage of hearing arguments and delivering judgments. The judgment of conviction is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed by passing the order of remand in the above light. Patna High Court, Dated, the 29th of April,2011, Brajesh Kumar/NAFR ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)