Judgment · High Court · 2007

CRL.A.163/2000-2-purchase was from an authorised dealer. He has also producedExt.D3 letter of the District Supply officer dated 21-10-1994along with the retail licence issued under Parallel MarketingSystem. Ext.D3 dated is the subsequent date of seizure. Ext.D2is a copy of licence which is dated 11-10-1994. The contentionof the accused is that he was having valid licence. 4. Counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that the Special court was not having jurisdiction as the provision forconstituting Special Court in terms of Section 12 A of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions Act), 1981 lasted onlyuntil 31-8-1997 and hence it is only the regular courts that ishaving jurisdiction to try the particular case. He has also reliedon the decision of this Court in Savarikutty @ Chacko Xavier v.STate of Kerala, I.L.R.2006(4) Ker.247.5. In the circumstances, I find that the trial and convictionby the Special Judge is without jurisdiction; and hence the orderin S.T.No.9/1998 is herewith set aside. CRL.A.163/2000-3-Considering the fact that the incident is dated 14-1-1994and that more than 13 years have been elapsed since then andthat the accused has already undergone trial and that he wasfacing the criminal proceedings for so long and since the date ofthe judgment in February 2000, he was living under theshadow of impending imprisonment and also considering thenature of the offence, I find that directing the appellant toundergo trial once again would not just. Hence, furtherproceedings in S.T.No.9/1998 is herewith set aside. The Crl.appeal is allowed. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGEks. CRL.A.163/2000-4-K.R.UDAYABHANU, JCRL.A. 163 of 2000JUDGMENT 17-7-2007