Special Court under the SC/ST Act cannot take direct cognizance without committal; charge framing remains for the court to ?

A Special Court designated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 remains a Court of Session and cannot take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is first committed by a Magistrate, because neither the Act nor the Code expressly dispenses with Section 193 CrPC. The Supreme Court approved the view requiring committal and rejected direct cognizance by the Special Court. It also held that no advance direction could compel the Special Court to frame charges after committal, since the court must decide the next procedural step independently, including any discharge application, in accordance with the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Special Court specified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can take cognizance of an offence without committal of the case by a Magistrate. (ii) Whether a direction could be issued that, after committal, the Special Court must frame charges against the accused.

Issue (i): Whether a Special Court specified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can take cognizance of an offence without committal of the case by a Magistrate.

Analysis: A Special Court under the Act is a Court of Session designated for trial of offences under the Act and retains the character of a Court of Session. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars a Court of Session from taking cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate, unless there is an express contrary provision. Neither the Act nor the Code contains any express provision authorising direct cognizance by the Special Court. The general saving and application provisions in Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code do not displace the committal requirement in the absence of such express provision. The contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court was rejected, and the interpretation adopted by the other High Courts was approved.

Conclusion: The Special Court cannot take cognizance directly and the case must be committed by a Magistrate before the Special Court can proceed.

Issue (ii): Whether a direction could be issued that, after committal, the Special Court must frame charges against the accused.

Analysis: Once the proceedings were set aside for want of proper committal, the next procedural step after committal had to be left to the Special Court in accordance with the Code. No advance direction could be issued compelling the Special Court to frame charges, because the court had to consider the matter independently at the appropriate stage, including any plea for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The direction to frame charges after committal was not approved.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the Special Court could not take cognizance without committal, while the premature direction on framing of charge was set aside and the matter was left to be dealt with by the Special Court according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A Court of Session designated as a Special Court under the Act cannot take cognizance of offences as a court of original jurisdiction unless the statute expressly displaces the committal requirement; in the absence of such express provision, the Code governs the mode of cognizance and trial.

---