Section 36: Appeal and revision to High Court

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1985

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 36

Section 36 of the NDPS Act mandates State Governments to constitute Special Courts by notification, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, presided over by qualified Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges to ensure expeditious trial of NDPS offences.

  • Mandatory Constitution of Special Courts: State Governments are empowered and mandated to constitute one or more Special Courts for such areas as specified in the notification to try offences under the Act.
  • Single Judge Composition: A Special Court consists of a single Judge appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
  • Statutory Judicial Qualification: Explicitly mandates that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge unless they are, immediately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnaswami (1997) 4 SCC 349: The Supreme Court held that the constitution of Special Courts under Section 36 is designed to bypass committal proceedings and ensure speedy trial by judges of Sessions rank.
  • Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 1 SCC 649: The Supreme Court affirmed that a Special Court constituted under Section 36 exercises original jurisdiction as a Court of Session, having all plenary powers of a trial court under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In jurisdictional challenges, verify whether the presiding judge was duly notified under Section 36 with High Court concurrence. If an Assistant Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate attempts to try commercial quantity offences without Section 36 designation, challenge all proceedings as null and void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.