JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) R. N. Ray, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1994 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge (SC/st Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) Oral district Jalaun and it has been submitted that though the learned Additional Session Judge at Oral has also been appointed as Special Judge within the meaning of Sec tion 2 (d) of the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but still he cannot invoke his power like a Magistrate to send that complaint petition under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. to the concerned police station for investigation. It has been contended that since he is the Additional Sessions Judge hence he cannot take cognizance of an offence unless committed before him by any Magistrate under the provisions of Section 209 of Cr. P. C. In this particular case, the learned court below passed the impugned order pur porting to be in the exercise of powers;under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. , which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, was bad in law as he has no power to do so. In this connection he has referred a decision reported in 1994 UP Crl. R 297-Mansha Ram v. State, wherein it was held that cognizance taken by learned Sessions Jugde of the offence under Sec tion 14 of the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in fact was bad it was without jurisdiction.
(2.) DULY considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order.
In view of the provisions of Section 193, Cr. P. C. , no court of Sessions can take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction, unless the case has been committed to that court by the learned Magistrate under Cr. P. C. for exercise of powers conferred on him. The Prevention of Atrocities Act is a special Act for protection of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There are other Special Acts also such as the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 in which there is pro vision in Section 7 of the Act which authorises the learned special Judge to take cognizance under said Act. Under the provisions of Section 14 (d) TADA there is provision that the designated court may take cognizance of the offence. Similarly, though the accused may not commit to the Court for trial but under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned Special Judge may take cognizance of the offence, if a complaint is filed before him but I do not find such provision under the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is true that the learned court below has been appointed as a special Judge within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act but unless the accused is sent to him by the learned Magistrate, I am afraid he cannot take any cognizance of the offence under Section 14 of the said Act and he also cannot act as a Magistrate in exercising his power or in taking the cognizance of the Act like a Magistrate or to send that complaint petition to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. In this case there was recourse left to him by sending the complaint petition to the Magistrate having the jurisdiction with a direction to act according to law and the thereafter when the case will be again sent back to him since he was to try the case as he was appointed a Judge within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act and to hold the trial thereafter, the learned court below may proceed with the trial.
The learned A. G. A. submitted that in view of the decision reported in U. P. Cr. R. 1994 297-Manshai Ram v. State, the order passed by the learned court below appears to be erroneous.
(3.) DULY considered the submissions. In view of my discussion and reasons assigned above, this criminal revision stands allowed at the admis sion stage and the impugned order dated 16-8-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed and it is A ordered that the said complaint petition be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction who shall act in the manner indicated above. Revision allowed. .;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.