S.No,OFFENCES,"RELEVANT PROVISIONS REGARDING
JURISDICTION
1.,"Section 13 of the Act provides
punishment for offences mentioned
in Chapter III of the Act.","Section 15 of the Act provides that no Court inferior
to Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial
Magistrate shall try an offence punishable
under Section 13 of the Act
2.,"Section 27, 27A, 28, 28A, 28B,
29 and 30 provide punishment for
offences mentioned in Chapter IV
of the Act.","Section 32(2) of the Act provides that no Court
inferior to a Court of Sessions shall try an offence
punishable under Chapter IV of the Act
3.,"Offences relating to adulterated
and spurious drugs AND
punishable under clauses (a) and
(b) of section 13, sub-section (3) of
section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of
section 27, section 28, section 28A,
section 28B, and clause
(b) of sub-section(1) of section 30
and other offences relating to
adulterated or spurious drugs","Section 36AB of the Act provides that said offences
to be tried by a Court of Sessions designated as
Special Court.
(vide notification dated 26.5.2011, issued by
Govt. of Punjab, the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge in
each Sessions Division has been designated as
Special Court under the Act in State of Punjab)
16. As regards the contention that the notification dated 26.5.2011 cannot be made effective retrospectively, I find that the aforesaid contention is",,
rather misconceived inasmuch the notification had merely designated officers of certain rank to be Special Courts whereas the provisions for trial of,,
offences by a Special Court had been incorporated in the Act by way of amendment in the Act on 10.8.2009, which is infact prior to the date of",,
commission of offences in the present case. Thus the provision having already been there in place before the offences were committed on 11.9.2009 it,,
does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the notification dated 26.5.2011 cannot be made applicable in the present case. By way of,,
notification dated 26.5.2011, the Govt. of Punjab has merely given effect to provisions of Section 36-AB of the Act which were already there in",,
existence. In any case, such procedural change, which does not prejudice the accused can not be called in question.",,
17. No other point has been raised or urged before this Court. The impugned order dated 9.3.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity and is hereby,,
affirmed. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed.",,
