Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Satyendra Prasad Singh praying therein to quash the entire criminal proceeding including order of cognizance recorded by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur dated 16.9.1988 against the petitioner, under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 "the Act" in short) in Custom Case No. 25 of 1987. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 20.2.1987 some persons on motorcycle were chased by Custom Officials but they fled away leaving behind motorcycle, from search of which three pockets of Nepali Ganja weighing 15 kg. were recovered. It was found that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle and was carrying the contraband. The claim of the petitioner is that on 21.2.1987 this petitioner had lodged a case before the Police alleging theft of the aforesaid motorcycle. 3. Vide order dated 6.9.1994 learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, on receipt of prosecution report, took cognizance of offence under Sec. 20 of the Act against the petitioner and ordered issuance of summons. 4. The brief law point as argued by learned Counsel is that Sec. 36-A to 36-D were substituted for Sec. 36 by Act 2 of 1989, with effect from 29.5.1989. Sec. 36 of the Act provided for Constitution of Special Court for a given jurisdiction consisting of a Single Judge who shall was be appointed by the Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a Special Court unless he is immediately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, Clause (d) of Sub-sec. (i) of Sec. 36(A) was pointed out which runs as follows: Sec. 36-A(i)(d)-a Special Court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constitution an offence under this Act or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in this behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 5. It is not in dispute that on the date cognizance of offence was taken, Special Court constituted under the Act was functioning at Muzaffarpur with jurisdiction also over the place of occurrence. 6. 5. It is not in dispute that on the date cognizance of offence was taken, Special Court constituted under the Act was functioning at Muzaffarpur with jurisdiction also over the place of occurrence. 6. It has been submitted that since the date on which the prosecution report was received and cognizance there upon was taken, Special Court was functioning at Muzaffarpur cognizance by Addl. A.C.J.M. was bad in law. Learned Counsel for the State has not controverter this law point. 7. It is well settled that on Constitution of Special Court witch a given jurisdiction for taking cognizance or for conductory a trial cases of a particular nature is constituted other Courts within that jurisdiction Cease to have that power. Therefore, since on the day the cognizance of offence was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., at Muzaffarpur the Special Court, which was competent to take cognizance of offence was functioning at that station, the cognizance of offence by the Learned Magistrate has to be held to the illegal. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and impugned order dated 7.9.1994 is hereby quashed. 9. The case is remitted back to the Special Court at Muzaffarpur to consider the prosecution report and to pass order, in accordance with law.