JUDGMENT 1. - The question springing for consideration in this criminal revision is whether the proceedings under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) which have commenced before the Court of Sessions in respect whereof it has taken cognizance before the establishment of the Special Court shall be heard and disposed of by the court of Sessions or by the Special Court? 2. This question emerges in the circumstances set out below (i) The petitioner and one Kantilal was arrested on August 29, 1993 in connection of transportation of DIACETYL MORPHINE in Premier Padmini Car bearing registration No. MBN 531. (ii) After completion of investigation a complaint under section 8/21 of the Act was filed in the court of Sessions of Kota as the State of Rajasthan vide its Notification No. P2/10/Nyay/85 dated July 26, 1993 constituted the said court for the purposes of the 'Act' and the court of Sessions at Kota was exercising jurisdiction under Section 36-D of the Act. On November 8, 1993 the Sessions Judge Kota took cognizance of the offence under sections 8/21 of the Act against the petitioner and Kantilai. (iii) The State of Rajasthan appointed Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota as Special Judge for N.D.PS. cases vide notification No. F.2/10/Nyay/86 dated Feb. 4, 1994 and the learned Sessions Judge Kota vide order dated March 30, 1994 transferred the aforesaid case to the court of Special Judge NDPS Cases cum Additional Sessions judge No. 2, Kota. (iv) The petitioner moved two applications on July 29, 1994 and Sept. 16, 1994 raising the objections that the Special Judge NDPS Cases cum additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota has no jurisdiction to hear the case in view of provisions contained in Section 36-D (2) and 36-A (1) (a) of the Act. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application vide orders dated August 18, 1994 and October 28, 1994. The said orders have been called in question in the instant revision. 3. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. 4. Before proceeding further it may be advantageous to understand the true scope and import of transitional provisions which have been Incorporated in Section 36-D of the Act. 5. The said orders have been called in question in the instant revision. 3. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. 4. Before proceeding further it may be advantageous to understand the true scope and import of transitional provisions which have been Incorporated in Section 36-D of the Act. 5. Section 36-D of the Act reads thus "36-D Transitional provisions - (1) Any offence committed under this Act on or after the commencement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 until a Special Court is constituted under section 36, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be tried by a Court of Session; Provided that offences punishable under Sections 26, 27 and 32 may be tried summarily. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed to require the transfer to a Special Court of any proceedings in relation to an offence taken cognizance of by a court of Session under the said sub-section (1) and the same shall be heard and disposed of by the Court of Session. 6. Admittedly the complaint under section 8/21 of the Act was filed against the petitioner in the Sessions Court at Kota as no special court was constituted and the sessions court had jurisdiction to try the cases arose from the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act in view of section 36-D (1) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence under Section 8/21 of the Act on November 8, 1993 against the petitioner and co-accused Kanti Lal. Therefore the aforesaid case could not have been transferred to the Special Court in view of section 36-D (2) of the Act. 7. In Supreme Court Legal Aid v. Union of India and others (Criminal Law Reports (SC) 1994 Page 779) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "Once the court of Sessions ha taken cognizance of an offence committed on or after 29th May, 1989, at a time when the Special Court was not in existence, such a case will not be required to be transferred to a Special Court subsequently constituted and the same would have to be heard and disposed of by the Court of Sessions" 8. The learned Sessions Judge Kota without examining the provisions contained in Section 36-D(2) of the Act transferred the case mechanically to the Special Court vide its order dated March 30, 1994 and when the attention of the learned Special Court was drawn towards this mandatory provision it was turned down. 9. I am conscious of the fact that the menace of drug trafficking has to be controlled by providing stringent punishment and those who indulge in such nefarious activities do not deserve any sympathy. But at the same time I cannot be oblivious to the fact that many under trials may also be languishing in jails. The Special Courts have been constituted for early disposal of cases in accordance with the provisions of the Act but such courts are also expected to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act in letter and spirit. 10. The order dated March 30, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the orders dated August 18, 1994 and October 28, 1994 of the learned Special Judge NDPS cases cum Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota are illegal and deserves to be set-aside and I hold that in view of transitional provisions under section 36-D(2) of the Act. the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to dispose of the instant criminal case. 11. Resultantly the revision is allowed and the order referred in para 10 of this judgment stand set-aside. Case No. 47/94 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota is transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota. Record of the case be sent to the Court of Sessions Judge Kota forthwith. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of this order.Revision Allowed. *******