JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated Feb. 19, 1998 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases/Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota (for short the trial court) whereby the charges under Sections 25-A and Section 8/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) have been framed against the accused petitioners. The only argument advanced by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate is that the learned trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. During the course of arguments, the objection is respect of jurisdiction was raised but it was not properly appreciated and the accused petitioners have been charged under the said offences. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel canvassed that under subsection (2) of Section 36 of the Act, the State Government on March 4, 1994 issued Notification No. F.2(10) Nyay/86, which reads as under: " ukjdksfVd M~Xl ,.M lkbZdksV~ksfid lCLVsUl ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ( 2 ) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky; la0 1 ,oa la[;k 2] ftyk dksVk ds ihBklhu vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa dk fooj.k djus okys mDr U;k;ky;ksa ds fof'k"B U;k;k/kh'k fu;qfDr djrh gSA " 2. Another Notification under sub clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Act was issued which reads as under: " ukjdksfVd M~Xl ,.M lkbZdksV~ksfid lCLVsUl ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ( 1 ) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky; la0 1 ,oa la[;k 2 dksVk dh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa ds ckjs esa viuh {ks=h; lhekvksa esa vf/kdkfjrk okys fo'ks"k U;k;ky; fofufnZ"V djrh gSA " 3. Sub-Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36-A a unequivocally lays down* that fit case there are more than one Special Courts for an area then the offence under the Act shall be tried only by such one of them who has been specified in this behalf by the State Government. The language of sub-clause (a) of,subjection (1-) of Section 36-A is in pari materia with the language of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 which deals with trials under Prevention of Corruption Act. The language of sub-clause (a) of,subjection (1-) of Section 36-A is in pari materia with the language of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 which deals with trials under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the language of the two sub-Clauses is exactly same, the interpretation under Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1952 becomes relevant. Incidentally the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Dr. J.P. Sharma and others reported in 1983 Cr.L.J. 858 has dilated on the scope of sub-clause in question. In para 13 of the judgment the Division Bench has held that the case can be tried only by such one of the Special Judges who has been specified in that behalf by the State Government. 4. The above quoted Notifications do not contain specifications vis-a-vis a particular Special Judge for holding the trial. Unless the State Government specifies the Special Judge who would hold the trial, the trial if conducted by ., any unspecified Judge shall be without jurisdiction Mr. Bajwa contended. 5. Mr Bajwa, learned counsel further contended that a distinction of course is to be drawn regarding a case in which objection regarding lack of jurisdiction is taken during the trial. In the case on hand, the petitioners had raised specific objection regarding lack of jurisdiction, but the learned trial court dismissed the objection vide its order dated April 2, 1997. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Legal Aid committee v. Union of India (1994 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 639) . It was then argued that in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court, the Special Judge. NDPS Act Cases/Add I. Sessions Judge, No. 2 Kots has not been properly quoted as Special Judge to hold trial of the case in question. 6. On the other hand. Mr. M.L. Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial by the learned trial court is not vitiated as failure of justice is not shown by the accused petitioners. 7. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the Notifications as well as the case law cited before me. 8. I deem it necessary at this juncture to incorporate section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under: "462. 7. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the Notifications as well as the case law cited before me. 8. I deem it necessary at this juncture to incorporate section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under: "462. Proceedings in wrong place-No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set-aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions d:vision, district, sub-division or other local area unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice." 9. Mr. Bajwa, learned Special Counsel though made a scathing criticism of the impugned order, and drew my attention towards the Notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan, but it has not been established that by the error of jurisdiction in fact failure of justice has been caused to the petitioner. 10. In State of Rajasthan v. Dr. J.R Sharma (supra) it was indicated thus : "We are of the opinion that if one of the Special Judge having jurisdiction over the matter tries the accused and no objection is taken by the accused during the course of trial then this will not vitiate the trial unless the accused can show that as a result of such trial there has in fact been failure of justice." 11. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 12 of the said judgment interprets section 36-A of the Act, thus : "This takes us to the next question : when can a Special Court be said to have been constituted? The plaint language of Section 36 says that the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Therefore the mode of constitution of Special Courts is by issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette specifying the area for which each Special Court is constituted. Sub-section (2) of section 36 states that the Special Court will be a single Judge Court. Therefore the mode of constitution of Special Courts is by issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette specifying the area for which each Special Court is constituted. Sub-section (2) of section 36 states that the Special Court will be a single Judge Court. Sub-section (3) next provides that a person who has immediately before such appointment functioned as a Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge shall be eligible to e appointed as a Judge of the Special Court. Section 36, therefore, has two stages, namely, the first stage in regard to the constitution of Special Courts is by issuance of a notification in the Official Gazette and then comes the appointment of the individual to function as a Judge of the Special Court. Therefore, as soon as the notification is issued under sub-section (1) of Section 36 the process of constitution of a (f Special Court commences and it is only thereafter that the Government can seek the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court for the appointment of a Judge of that Court. As stated earlier, only a person who has worked as a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge immediately before such appointment is qualified to be a Judge of the Special Court. This is the plain language of Section 36." 12. In para 14 of the said judgment, the Apex Court further observed that: "The provision as to the constitution of the court at the initial stage' as contemplated by section 36, must, therefore, be understood to mean that all its constituent elements of time, place ana officers are complete and unless the Judge expected to man the court is appointed the constitution cannot be said to be complete because the court cannot take off till then, the initial constitution becomes complete only when the requirements of both sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 have been completed." 13. Sub-clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 36A of the Act lays down that in case there are more than one Special Courts for an area then the offence under the Act shall be tried only by such of them who has been specified in this behalf by the State Government. But the above quoted Notifications do not contain specification vis-a- vis a particular Judge for holding the trial. But the above quoted Notifications do not contain specification vis-a- vis a particular Judge for holding the trial. Unless the State Government specifies the Special Judge who will hold the trial, it cannot be said that the trial if conducted by any unspecified Judge shall be within his jurisdiction. As already observed, the trial of the instant case is not vitiated as provisions contained in Section 462 Cr.RC. are attracted. (Emphasis supplied) 14. Result of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned trial court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, but the State of Rajasthan is expected to issue a proper Notification forthwith to specify the Special Judge who would hold the trial of the cases under the act. The miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary. Registrar General, Raj. High Court Jodhpur and Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan who would look into the matter and shall issue necessary Notification immediately. *******