JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted. 2. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the special court which ceased to be a special court under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? 3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus : The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the EC Act ) in the year 2000. In that connection crime Nos. 3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused. They were arrested and remanded to jail. Two of the accused persons were produced before the area magistrate who remanded them to police custody and subsequently they were produced before the special court at Madurai who passed successive remand orders for their custody in jail. The third accused was directly produced before the special court and was remanded to custody by orders passed by the said Court from time to time. After the enactment of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (for short the EC (Special Provisions) Act") the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the High Court had issued a notification under Section 12-A of the EC Act (Special Provision) constituting the special courts which were empowered to try cases under the Special Commodities Act pending in various courts in the State of Tamil Nadu. In pursuance of the said Government order a District and Sessions Judge was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the special court at Madurai for trial of cases under the EC Act. Subsequently, by another Government order issued in June, 1993 the Government of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the High Court empowered the Presiding Officer of the special courts for EC Act cases to deal with the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act ). Accordingly, the special court for EC Act cases functioning at Madurai was also assigned to try the offences under the NDPS Act within the same territorial jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, the special court for EC Act cases functioning at Madurai was also assigned to try the offences under the NDPS Act within the same territorial jurisdiction. 4. The EC (Special Provisions) Act which provided for special courts under Section 12A came into force from 1.9.1982. The said Act was enforced initially for a period of 5 years and was extended for a further period of 5 years i.e. 1987 to 1992 and thereafter from 1992 to 1997. The Act was in force till 31.8.1997. Thereafter the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1997 (Central Ordinance 21 of 1997) was promulgated. As there was no enactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance, 1998 (Central Ordinance 13 of 1998) was promulgated by the President. The above two Ordinances lapsed since they were not replaced by enactments, as a result of which the special courts established for trial of EC Act cases ceased to function. The consequential position that followed was that the cases registered under the EC Act were to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was being done prior to enactment of EC (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. 5. The accused No. 4 Esakiappan was arrested in connection with crime No. 3/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CID, Civil Supplies, Tiruneveli for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, 1955 for the contravention of clause 4(i) and 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 and Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card system) Order, 1982. He was produced on 9.2.2000 before the special court under the NDPS Act at Madurai which previously was dealing with EC Act cases and he was remanded to judicial custody. 6. The detenu K. Palaniselvan (Accused No. 1) and Gopal @ Balagopal (accused No. 2) were arrested on 9.2.2000 and produced before the judicial magistrate, Kovilpatti in connection with the above cases. After the initial remand by the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti the said accused persons were periodically produced before the special court, Madurai and remanded to judicial custody. The aforementioned three accused persons are also the accused in another case, crime No. 14/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies, CID Tirunalveli. The case was registered for similar offences as in crime No. 3/2000 referred above. The aforementioned three accused persons are also the accused in another case, crime No. 14/2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies, CID Tirunalveli. The case was registered for similar offences as in crime No. 3/2000 referred above. After completing the investigation in both the cases (crime Nos. 3 and 14/2000) charge-sheets were filed before the special court Madurai whereafter the accused were being periodically remanded by the Presiding Officer of the special court under Section 309 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. The three accused persons filed habeas corpus petitions Nos. 1401, 1402 and 1403/2000 in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the remand orders passed by the special court at Madurai and questioned the legality of their detention in pursuance of the said order of remand. The case of the petitioners shortly stated was that after the EC (Special Provision) Act, 1981 lapsed by efflux of time in 1998, the special court constituted under Section 12A of the said Act ceased to have jurisdiction to try cases under the EC Act, and therefore, the remand orders passed by the special court constituted for trial of cases under the NDPS Act had no jurisdiction to pass remand order in EC Act cases. Thus the successive orders of remand passed by the special court under the NDPS Act at Madurai being without jurisdiction were invalid and the detention of the petitioners on the basis of such orders was illegal. The petitioners prayed for being released from custody forthwith. 8. The case of the State of Tamil Nadu as appears from the discussions in the Judgment of the High Court was that though the special court at Madurai constituted for trial of EC Act cases ceased to exist after 1998 when the EC (Special Provisions) Act lapsed by efflux of time, the Presiding Officer of the special court for trial of NDPS Act cases at Madurai who was also a Sessions Judge had power to pass the orders of remand under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as he was also exercising powers of a Judicial Magistrate in respect of cases tried by him. 9. 9. The High Court on a detailed discussion of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and referring to several decisions cited by them held that in the present case the crime allegedly committed by petitioners was in the first week of February 2000, long after the lapse of the Ordinance dated 24.10.1998 as a result of which the EC (Special Provisions) Act ceased to exist. The prosecution or penalty, if any, for alleged offences under the EC Act has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions of the said Act only and such a case could be proceeded with by the Court having jurisdiction, normally the area magistrate of the area where the offence was alleged to have been committed and not before the special court constituted for the EC Act cases or NDPS Act cases. The High Court also observed that the area magistrates were functioning in the area in which the offence was alleged to have been committed and further that no powers of a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been conferred on a special court or the Presiding Officer of Special Court at Madurai : 10. The High Court summed up its findings in the following words : "But in this case as already pointed out it is clear neither on the date of first remand nor on the date of subsequent extension, or taking cognizance, nor as on date there is legal order of remand or extension of remand at all by the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases Madurai which ceased to exist long ago and as it is not a validly constituted court or Magistrate its orders and proceedings are without jurisdiction. Hence, the reliance placed upon the above pronouncement is of no consequence or assistance, nor it could be considered as a mere irregularity as sought to be made out. In the foregoing circumstances the order of remand and the extension of the remand of the detenus from time to time are without jurisdiction, such order cannot be continued and there should naturally be a direction to the respondent herein as well as the Superintendent of the concerned Jails namely Central Jail, Vellore, Central Jail, Palayamkottai, Central Jail, Trichirapalli, to set the three detenus at liberty. Though the detenus as already held are in remand which remand is being without jurisdiction ordinarily the detenus should be set at liberty. However, in the interest of justice and on the facts in the case instead of setting the detenus at liberty and thereafter allowing the respondent to go before the concerned Magistrate, to avoid delay and technical objections and to render substantial justice, we hold that this is imminently a fit case where this Court would be justified in enlarging the detenus on bail as in two cases initially there was a valid order of remand by the area Magistrate and in the third case even though there was no remand by the area Magistrate and the remand was made by the Special Court at the first instance. But on that score it would not be proper for us to treat the third case as differently and to give a disposal differently." 11. Allowing the Habeas Corpus petition the High Court passed the following order : "On the facts of the case instead of issuing a writ of habeas corpus we are of the considered view that the detenus herein would very well be ordered to be released on bail which would subserve the interest of justice. In the circumstances, while following the Supreme Court judgment in State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh reported in AIR 1966 SC 1441 we direct the three detenus namely (1) Issakkiappan (ii) Palani Selvam and (iii) Gopal @ Balagopal, respectively in remand at the Central Jail, Vellore, Central Jail, Palayamkottai and Central Jail, Trichirapalli shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :- xxx xxx xxx It is made clear that it is open to the detenus to attend the area Magistrate before which Courts the respondent may proceed with the prosecution of cases for violation of Essential Commodities Act." 12. The said judgment/order is under challenge in these appeals. 13. The said judgment/order is under challenge in these appeals. 13. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Presiding Officer of the special Court at Madurai which was initially constituted for trial of cases under the EC Act and subsequently entrusted with the cases under the NDPS Act might have ceased for the purpose of trial of EC Act cases after the Ordinance lapsed in October, 1998 but the special court continued to exercise powers under the NDPS Act, and since the Presiding Officer of the said court was a Sessions Judge who was exercising powers of a judicial Magistrate he could pass the order of remand even when he had no jurisdiction to try cases under the EC Act. Alternatively, Shri Iyer contended that the defect, if any, in the remand order was curable and no writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention could be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Per contra Mr. S. Sivasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the conclusion drawn by the High Court in the judgment under challenge that the remand order passed by the special court at Madurai was without jurisdiction, the prosecution. Hence, we confirm the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. (Paras 6 & 7) (N.K.R)                                                                  Appeals dismissed ****************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : State of Tamil Nadu v. Paramasiva Pandian, 2001(8) Supreme 1 : 2001 (9) JT 357 : AIR 2001 SC 2972 : 2001 (2) JCC 326 : 2001 Crl.L.J. 4772 00048