- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-07-2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in criminal revision No. 39 of 2005, whereby the order dated 02-07-2005, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, sum moning the accused respondent No. 2, is set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist/ complainant drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Adalat Prasad Vs. Roophl Jindal and others; 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1, wherein it has been held that the summoning order passed under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory or der and revision is not maintainable against said order. Though, this court finds that the revisional power exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in the present case, did not vest in him in view of the principle of law laid down in Adalat Prasad (supra) but the reasons on which the order dated 02-07-2005, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, mentioned in the impugned judgment are concerned, they deserve con sideration by the court which has power to examine the summoning order. In the present case, in exercise of its powers, this Court has to see that by setting aside the impugned order, the order which was passed by trial court against provisions of jaw, is restored. In the criminal complaint No. 53 of 2005, complainant made allegations against respondent No. 2, who is a Prin cipal of a Government Inter College and, who, refused to admit son of the com plainant. Needless to say that Principal of Government Inter College is a public servant. The complainant's case was that the Principal did not admit his son, as his son is a member of Scheduled Caste. In his statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr. PC. , as is clear from the copy of order passed by the Magistrate, it was admitted that the Principal of the col lege (accused respondent No. 2) told the complainant that his son has not secured sufficient marks, and for that reason he can not be admitted in the college. As such, denial of admission of the com plainant's son in the college, was defi nitely in exercise of duties performed by the public servant. In such case, neither the cognizance could have been taken without sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. , nor there was sufficient evi dence to summon the accused that he had committed offence punishable un der Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that offence punishable under Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, gets attracted when a public servant neglects to perform his duty under said Act. In the present case, duty of respondent No. 2 to give admission to the son of com plainant, was not in exercise of the above Act, as such the order passed by Special Judicial Magistrate summoning the ac cused was against the law, on this ground also. It is argued on behalf of the revi sionist that Section 20 of the said Act overrides the provisions contrary con tained in other law. I am at loss to un derstand how that provision comes to the rescue of the complainant as there is nothing contained in the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is contrary to the provision of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.;