2004 (3) TMI 767 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Clarifies Jurisdiction: Special Courts Need Magistrate Commitment for Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act Offences.

The appeals concerning offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioned the Special Court's ... Cognizance of offences directly without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate - Commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 ('the Act') - HELD THAT:- Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge-sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such Special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the Court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Session from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the Court of Session. Section 5 of the Code cannot be brought in aid for supporting the view that the Court of Session specified under the Act obviate the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code so long as there is no provision in the Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence as a Court of original jurisdiction. Hence, we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straight away be laid down before the Special Court under the Act. We are re-iterating the view taken by this Court in Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P. [2000 (1) TMI 975 - SUPREME COURT] in above terms with which we are in respectful agreement. The Sessions Court in the case at hand, undisputedly has acted as one of original jurisdiction, and the requirements of Section 193 of the Code were not met. Though the plea relating to lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the lower Courts, in view of the undisputed position on facts and inasmuch as a pure question of law without any factual controversy is involved, we feel interference on the facts of the case is called for. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the above directions and observations. Issues involved: Interpretation of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court to take cognizance of offences directly without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate.Summary:The appeals involved identical issues related to alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court convicted the appellants, and the High Court upheld the decision. The main contention raised was whether the Trial Court could suo moto entertain and register the complaint as a sessions case. The Special Judge's authority to take cognizance of the offence without the case being committed to him was questioned.The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Act. It was established that a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and can only take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The Court emphasized that a complaint or charge-sheet cannot be directly filed before the Special Court under the Act.It was clarified that the Sessions Court in this case acted as a court of original jurisdiction, not meeting the requirements of Section 193 of the Code. Despite the lack of jurisdiction plea not being raised earlier, due to the undisputed facts and the pure legal question involved, the Court found it necessary to intervene.Another plea regarding the continuation of proceedings due to the passage of time was dismissed, emphasizing that the Competent Court should decide on the next steps as per Section 227 of the Code. The appellants were granted the opportunity to raise their contentions before the Competent Court for appropriate orders in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the above directions and observations.