JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they stand preferred against a common judgment rendered on 20.11.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, whereby the latter Court affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the accused/petitioners herein stood convicted besides a consequential sentence stood imposed upon them. 2. The facts necessary for an adjudication upon the instant criminal revision petitions are that on 12.11.2005 at about 3.00 a.m., ASI Lal Chand along with other police officials was present at Manali bridge in connection with Nakabandi. One motor cycle came towards Manali bazaar from Aleo side. The motor cycle was stopped. The rider of the motor cycle tried to turn back and on suspicion, the said rider alongwith the pillion rider of the motor cycle were apprehended. During the course of personal search of accused Om Prakash, one steel container was recovered from the left pocket of his jacket and on the opening of the same, it was found containing charas in the shape of small balls kept in a polythene wrapper. Recovered charas was weighed and it was found to be 100 grams. One 10 gram weight, currency note of Rs.11050 had also been recovered from the jacket of accused Om Prakash. Charas was recovered from the person of accused OM Prakash and co-accused Mohinder was having knowledge about the possession of charas by co-accused Om Prakash. Rukka was prepared on the spot which was sent to Police Station, Manali through H.C. Mohar Singh. On the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. Thereafter the Investigating Officer completed all the codal formalities. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali charged accused Om Prakash for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?) besides charged accused Mohinder for his committing an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act. In sequel, to the conclusion of the trial to which both accused aforesaid stood subjected to, they stood convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali. In sequel, to the conclusion of the trial to which both accused aforesaid stood subjected to, they stood convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali. Both the petitioners standing aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, preferred appeals therefrom before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Kullu, whereupon the latter Court rendered a judgment in affirmation to the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused/petitioners by the learned trial Court. 4. Charas holding a weight of 100 grams stood allegedly recovered from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of accused Om Prakash. At the relevant stage of effectuation of its recovery from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of co-accused Om Prakash, he stood accompanied by co-accused Mohinder Singh. The trite submission addressed herebefore by the learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioners stands anvilled upon the factum of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, who convicted besides sentenced the accused for the offences for which they stood charged holding no jurisdiction to hold the accused for trial whereupon he contends of its verdict standing stained with a vice of jurisdictional incompetence also he canvasses qua the judgment in affirmation thereto rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu also concomitantly standing stained with a parameteria vice of vitiation, vice whereof stands contended by the learned counsel for the appellant to sprout from the factum qua given the quantity of charas allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer concerned from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of co-accused Om Prakash at the site of occurrence whereat he stood accompanied by co-accused Mohinder Singh rendering both the learned Courts below disempowered to try the accused also theirs holding no jurisdictional clout to convict besides sentence both the accused. The lack of jurisdictional competence in the Judicial Magistrate concerned to hold the accused for trial for theirs purportedly jointly holding possession of 100 grams of charas is embedded in the factum of the aforesaid quantum of charas not falling within the domain of the statutory definition imparted to ?small quantity? of charas by Section 2 (xxiia) of the Act, whereupon the relevant jurisdiction to try the accused vested in the Special Court. Definition of ?small quantity? of charas by Section 2 (xxiia) of the Act, whereupon the relevant jurisdiction to try the accused vested in the Special Court. Definition of ?small quantity? as stands encapsulated in Section 2 (xxiia) of the Act stands extracted hereinafter:- ??small quantity?, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.? Significantly, when the statutory definition qua small quantity as stands encapsulated therein holds there within an apparent coinage of the relevant narcotic drug being construable to be holding a weight whereupon it would stand characterized to be its small quantity only when its weight as determined by the Investigating Officer concerned is lesser than the weight as stands displayed vis-a-vis it in the relevant notification. Taking a clue from the statutory definition of ?small quantity? held in Section 2 (xxiia) besides in conjunction therewith bearing in mind the relevant narcotic drug conspicuously ?charas? allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Om Prakash at the relevant site, holding a weight of 100 grams, renders its weight to stand constituted in the category of greater than its small quantity, especially when its holding a weight of 100 grams stands pronounced in the relevant notification to be a weight equivalent to its standing characterized as its small quantity, whereas the aforesaid manifestation occurring in the relevant notification stands imperatively enjoined to be read unbereft of rather in coagulation with the statutory definition of ?small quantity? held in the aforesaid section of the Act. In sequitur with visible pronouncements occurring in the relevant notification displaying therein the respective weights of the relevant drugs for theirs being thereupon construable to be falling within the ambit of its small quantity or its intermediate quantity or its commercial quantity when as enjoined stand read in coagulation with the statutory definition of ?small quantity? wherewithin an echoing is held of the relevant weight of the relevant narcotic drug being construable to be falling within the ambit of ?small quantity? only when it holds a weight lesser than its optimum weight specified in the apposite notification existing in the Official Gazettee. wherewithin an echoing is held of the relevant weight of the relevant narcotic drug being construable to be falling within the ambit of ?small quantity? only when it holds a weight lesser than its optimum weight specified in the apposite notification existing in the Official Gazettee. Consequently, even if the relevant notification pronounces 100 grams of charas to be the optimum weight qua small quantity of charas, nonetheless, when imperatively in coagulation thereof reverence is also enjoined to be meted to the statutory definition of small quantity, wherewithin a trite articulation occurs qua a quantity lesser than the optimum quantity of the relevant drug manifested in the apposite notification alone rendering the relevant drug to stand characterized qua its holding a small quantity. In sequel, with charas hereat holding a weight of 100 grams, weight whereof stands pronounced in the apposite notification to be the optimum weight qua its small quantity renders on anvil of the afore extracted statutory definition qua its small quantity where within it is to be construable to be its small quantity only when it holds a weight lesser than 100 grams, qua the weight of 100 grams of charas being obviously construable to be a quantity other than its small quantity, tritely it holding a weight lesser than its commercial quantity or more than its small quantity. While imparting the aforesaid signification to the statutory parlance of ?small quantity? held in Section 2 (xxiiia) of the Act, this Court draws succor from a rendition of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Ratto versus State of H.P., 2003 (2) SimLC 161, relevant paragraphs No.19 and 20 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, where within a firm dictak occurs of words in a statute being amenable to be imparted their natural grammatical meaning. ?19. In our considered view quantity greater than, has to be given its simple and grammatical meaning. Reason is that there is no ambiguity in these words. Nor they call be given any other meaning that the one as are understood in the common parlance. We further feel that these words are not capable of being interpreted-in any other manner except that commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government has to be greater than or to say more than/bigger than/larger than one Kg. 20. For holding so, we are of the view that legislature was well aware when the words ?greater than? We further feel that these words are not capable of being interpreted-in any other manner except that commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government has to be greater than or to say more than/bigger than/larger than one Kg. 20. For holding so, we are of the view that legislature was well aware when the words ?greater than? were incorporated in the sub-section as also about its meaning. There can hardly be any other purpose, import or meaning that can be attributed to the words ?quantity greater than? used in the aforesaid sub-section. Thus, there is no ambiguity while examining this provision of law.? 5. While holding a literal construction to the definition of ?small quantity? held in Section 2 (xxiia) of the Act also on imputing a natural meaning to its phraseology of ?any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by a notification in the Official Gazetee? it being alone the apt reckoner for erecting an inference qua the relevant drug being construable to be falling within the ambit of its small quantity, fosters an imminent conclusion of the legislature in its wisdom construing the weight of the relevant drug to fall within the ambit of its ?small quantity? only when it holds a weight lesser than its optimum weight displayed in the relevant notification. The word ?lesser? occurring in the relevant statutory definition of ?small quantity? held in Section 2 (xxiiia) of the Act ought to be imputed no meaning other than what it obviously conveys. Consequently, it is held of charas weighing 100 grams as stood allegedly recovered from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of accused Om Prakash at the relevant site of occurrence whereat he stood allegedly accompanied by co-accused Mohinder falling within the ambit and domain of higher than or greater than its small quantity. 6. Be that as it may, it is also imperative to determine the tenacity of the submission addressed hereat by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner qua the trial held by the Judicial Magistrate concerned standing vitiated, his standing disabled to try the accused for theirs allegedly committing the relevant offences. The relevant guidance for solving the aforesaid conundrum stands purveyed by Section 20 of the Act, relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: ?20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.-........ (a)............................. (b).................... (i).................... The relevant guidance for solving the aforesaid conundrum stands purveyed by Section 20 of the Act, relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: ?20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.-........ (a)............................. (b).................... (i).................... (ii) where such contravention relations to sub clause (b),- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisnment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees; The aforesaid provisions provide qua on culmination of the trial of the relevant accused qua his allegedly holding conscious and exclusive possession of a narcotic drug holding a weight higher than its statutory small quantity, whereupon the Court concerned records findings of conviction vis-a-vis him, it holding jurisdiction to impose upon him both, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 10 years and a sentence of fine which may extend upto one lakh rupees. However, the aforesaid provisions stand enjoined to be conjointly read with the provisions of Section 36A (1) (a), which stand extracted hereinafter, where within a mandate is held of where an offence amenable to imposition of punishment of imprisonment for more than three years stands committed, it being triable only by the Special Court constituted in the area. Relevant provisions of Section 36A read as under:- ?36A. Offences triable by Special Courts.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Pcoredure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the are in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government; …................................................? Section 36 contains provisions qua constitution of Special Courts. Section 36 contains provisions qua constitution of Special Courts. Sub section 3 mandates of no person standing 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. In aftermath, with the Special Court alone holding jurisdiction to impose a sentence of imprisonment of more than three years for an offence allegedly committed by the accused qua theirs allegedly holding purported conscious and exclusive possession of charas, holding a weight more than its statutory small quantity also with a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge alone holding the capacity to man the Special Court, also thereupon the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali obviously has no jurisdiction to try the accused for theirs allegedly jointly holding purported conscious and exclusive possession of charas, weight whereof is more than its small quantity. In sequitur, with the initial jurisdiction for trying besides convicting and sentencing the accused not vesting in the Judicial Magistrate concerned, his verdict whereupon he convicted and consequently sentenced the accused holds no jurisdictional vigour. Concomitantly, also the renditions in appeals carried therefrom before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the latter, whereby, pronouncements in affirmation stood rendered also stand ingrained with a vice of jurisdictional incompetence. 7. Consequently, the instant revisions petitions are allowed. The judgments impugned before this Court are quashed and set aside. The trial of the accused is held to be vitiated. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Judge, Kullu to hold trial afresh of the accused in accordance with law. Records be sent back forthwith. Before parting with the judgment, this Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable legal assistance purveyed to this Court by Mr. Anup Chitakara, Advocate, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. Advocate General.