IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 650 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 324/2002 IN SC.260/2004 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SURESH TAK,S/O.CHANGANLAL TAK MAHARANA PRATAP CHOWK, RATLAM DISTRICT MADHYAPRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KOZHIKODE. 2. SRI.P.K.HARIDAS,ADVOCATE & SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN SC NO. 260 OF 2004 & SC NO. 324/2002 ON THE FILE IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 650 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 14-02-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the sole accused in S.C. 260 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Palakkad is an undertrial prisoner for the past 2 ½ years from 27-6-2005 onwards. The said case is jointly tried along with Sessions Case No. 324 of 2002 before that Court to which it was recently transferred. The offences involved are those punishable under Sections 21(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the N.D.P.S. Act for short). The evidence was recorded by the II Addl. Sessions Court, Palakkad which as per the decision dated 4-1-2008 of this Court in Crl. M.C. 3476 of 2007 is not a notified Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act. But the I Addl. Sessions Court, Palakkad where the case is presently pending is a notified Court and it appears that the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case raised a doubt as to whether the trial already conducted before the II Addl. Sessions Court would be valid since the II Addl. Sessions Court is not a notified Court. It is true that the II Addl. Sessions Court which had partly conducted the trial of Crl.M.C. No. 650 of 2008 -:2:- the case was found by this Court in the aforesaid order to be a Court which was not notified under the N.D.P.S. Act. But the Presiding Judge of the I Addl. Sessions Court is the Judge who conducted the trial while presiding over the II Addl. Sessions Court is since then he has been transferred to the I Addl. Sessions Court, and, therefore, he is fully posted with the facts of the case. As a matter of fact it was at the instance of the accused in both the Sessions Cases that the cases were transferred to the Ist Addl. Sessions Court which is a notified Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection in the Ist Addl. Sessions Court continuing the trial from the stage at which the II Addl. Sessions Judge had stopped the same. In as much as the very same officer who conducted the trial in part while Presiding over the II Addl. Sessions Court is the officer presiding over the I Addl. Sessions Court which is a duly notified Special Court, I see no reason why the I Addl. Sessions Court should not continue with the trial. Not only the petitioner but also the other accused in the case had not raised any objection regarding jurisdiction when the trial was going on in the II Addl. Sessions Court until the case was transferred to the I Addl. Crl.M.C. No. 650 of 2008 -:3:- Sessions Court. If necessary, the I Addl. Sessions Court can also obtain an affidavit from the accused persons to the effect that they have no objection regarding the trial in part conducted by the II Addl. Sessions Court and that they have no objection in the I Addl. Sessions Court continuing the trial. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly disposed of clarifying the above position. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.