AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2000-5-29
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 23,2000

AVTAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Notice to the State of Punjab. On the asking of the Court Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, DAG, Punjab accepts the notice. Petitioners Avtar Singh and Mander Singh are seeking quashment of the challan submitted by the State under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987. It may be mentioned here that both the petitioners are being prosecuted under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC and the offence has been registered against them in Police Station Raman, District Bathinda for allegedly committing rape upon Rani, who belongs to scheduled caste community.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the challan has been directedly presented in the special Court which is a Court of Session and in these circumstances, being a Court of Session, the special Court could not take the cognizance directly unless the challan is committed to it by the Area Magistrate. In support of his contention, he relies upon Gangula Ashok and another v. State of A.P., 2000 (1) RCR (Crl.) 797 (SC) = 2000 (1) All India Crl. LR 578, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it has been observed as follows: "9. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other Court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. Why the Parliament provided that only a Court of Session can be specified as a Special Court? Evidently the Legislature wanted the Special Court to be Court of Session. Hence, the particular Court of Session, even after being specified as a Special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of Session. The trial in such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "Trial before a Court of Session".
(3.) In this view of the matter, the prosecution could not produce the challan directly to the Court of Session. It was supposed to be presented before the Magistrate.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.