SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. This is a criminal revision against the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the Special Judge (appointed under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act), Jhansi in special case no. 99 of 2009, Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Deo Singh and others, under sections 395, 452, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, police station Samthar, district Jhansi, whereby the learned Special Judge refused to discharge the revisionists.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the trial instituted before the Special Court relates to a scheduled offence as defined under section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, (in short 'the Act'). Therefore, the Special Judge should have proceeded to hold the trial in accordance with section 7(2) of the Act, according to which the trial of a scheduled offence, so far as may be, should be held according to the procedures prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code), for trial of sessions-case. It was further submitted that the Special Court had no doubt powers to perform the functions of a Magistrate under section 207 of the Code and also to proceed with the trial without the case having been committed to the court of session but in view of the special provision, so provided in section 7 of the Act, the learned Special Judge committed material procedural error in considering the discharge application under section 245(2) of the Code. The discharge prayer ought to have been considered in accordance with section 227 of the Code. This submission seems to have much substance.;