MAGLI PRASAD Vs. ADDL SESSION JUDGE SPL JUDGE

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.

(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. .