C. A. Rahim, J. - (1.) HEARD learned advocate and learned A.G.A. This is an application to quash the proceeding in case No. 193 of 1992 arising out of case Crime No. 153 of 1992, Police-station Sipri Bazar, district Jhansi.
(2.) LEARNED counsel has based his argument mainly on two points. Firstly. the Special Judge took cognizance of the offence which is not permissible under law and hence the entire proceeding is vitiated and secondly that the final report was submitted before the learned Special Judge, who did not examine the complainant or his witnesses on the protest petition filed by the complainant and hence it is illegal. In the case of In re : Director General of Prosecution reported in 1993 Cr LJ page 760. the Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that the word "Try" used in Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act means that the special court has got power to make every kind of inquiry as a criminal court of original jurisdiction in terms of the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that nothing has been stated specifically in the aforesaid Act whether the special Judge can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the provisions of the said Act and no procedure has been specially mentioned by which the special Judge can act on or any of the powers enjoyed by the Magistrate in Cr. P.C. The contention of the learned counsel is that under Section 190, Cr. P.C. only the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance. Under Section 193 Cr. P.C. sessions court cannot take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by the learned Magistrate under this Code. Section 14 of the said Act has only empowered the special court constituted under that Act to try an offence punishable under the provisions of the said Act but is silent about the procedure to be adopted in trying those cases. But in view of the decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, special court has got power to make every kind of inquiry as a criminal court of original jurisdiction. It has also been held in that case that in a case where an offence under Section 3 of the Act and Section 376, I.P.C. has been complained of, the accused can be tried for both the offences in the same proceeding and for that purpose no order of committal by the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. is called for. So I do not find any illegality in taking cognizance (by the learned special Judge, though of the rank of Additional District Judge. The next point is that whether the court can issue process on the basis of a protest petition lodged after the submission of the final report without going through the procedure provided under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. After receiving final report the court has got three options. It can accept the final report or order for re-investigation. The court is also empowered to reject the final report and to take cognizance if there lis material in the case diary or in the form of evidence adduced before him by the complainant, sufficient to establish prima facie case against the accused persons. In the instant case a protest petition was submitted but no witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. In M/s India Carat Private Limited v. State of U. P. reported in 1989 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 178 (SC), it has (been held that "a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P.C. even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out and in that situation the Magistrate is not bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 200/202, Cr. P.C. though it is open to him to act under those sections." So from the observation of the Supreme Court it appears that it is not mandatory to examine the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200, Cr. P.C. while refusing to accept the final report. So it appears that by order dated 8.7.1994 Special Judge has gone through the merits of the case and found prima facie case under Section 323/324/504/506. I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S. C. and S. T. Act against the accused. So at this stage I do not find any material to interfere with the. said order of the learned Special Judge.
(3.) SO both the arguments having been failed the application is dismissed.;