2012 (2) TMI 643 - SC - Indian Laws

Special Court's Jurisdiction: Magistrate's Role Essential in Offense Cognizance

The court clarified that a Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot take cognizance ... Principle of `failure of justice' - Effect on not committing an accused in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) in cases where charge-sheet is filed u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act - In the instant case neither the Trial Court nor the High Court appears to have kept in view the requirements of sub-section (3) relating to question regarding 'failure of justice'. Merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the Court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. The same also applies to the appellate or revisional Court. The requirement of sub- section (4) about raising the issue, at the earliest stage has not been also considered. Unfortunately the High Court by a practically non-reasoned order, confirmed the order passed by the learned trial judge. The orders are, therefore, indefensible. We set aside the said orders. It would be appropriate to require the trial Court to record findings in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 19. 'Per incuriam' are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.' `Incuria' literally means `carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The `quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, `in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority' HELD THAT:- No objection was raised at the time of framing of charge or any other relevant time but only propounded after conviction. Under these circumstances, the right of the collective as well as the right of the victim springs to the forefront and then it becomes obligatory on the part of the accused to satisfy the court that there has been failure of justice or prejudice has been caused to him. we come to the irresistible conclusion that the objection relating to non-compliance of Section 193 of the Code, which eventually has resulted in directly entertaining and taking cognizance by the Special Judge under the (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground alone, the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a direction of retrial and, therefore, the decision rendered in Bhooraji [2001 (8) TMI 1385 - SUPREME COURT] lays down the correct law inasmuch as there is no failure of justice or no prejudice is caused to the accused. The decisions rendered in Moly and Vidyadharan [2004 (3) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT] have not noted the decision in Bhooraji, a binding precedent, and hence they are per incuriam and further, the law laid down therein, whereby the conviction is set aside or matter is remanded after setting aside the conviction for fresh trial, does not expound the correct proposition of law and, accordingly, they are hereby, to that extent, overruled. if the failure of justice is not bestowed its due signification in a case of the present nature, every procedural lapse or interdict would be given a privileged place on the pulpit. It would, with unnecessary interpretative dynamism, have the effect potentiality to cause a dent in the criminal justice delivery system and eventually, justice would become illusory like a mirage. It is to be borne in mind that the Legislature deliberately obliterated certain rights conferred on the accused at the committal stage under the new Code. The intendment of the Legislature in the plainest sense is that every stage is not to be treated as vital and it is to be interpreted to subserve the substantive objects of the criminal trial. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. Compliance with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Validity of the trial and conviction without committal proceedings.4. The concept of 'failure of justice' and its application.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the Special Court:The primary issue was whether the Special Court under the Act could take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate as per Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court clarified that a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and cannot take cognizance of an offence unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate. This was supported by previous rulings in Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala.Compliance with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:Section 193 mandates that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate. The court reaffirmed that this provision must be adhered to, and any deviation from it constitutes an irregularity.Validity of the Trial and Conviction Without Committal Proceedings:The court examined whether a trial conducted without committal proceedings under Section 193 could be considered valid. It referenced Bhooraji v. State of M.P., which held that a trial by a competent court cannot be invalidated merely due to the absence of committal proceedings unless it results in a 'failure of justice.' The court emphasized that procedural lapses should not automatically vitiate the trial unless they cause substantial prejudice to the accused.The Concept of 'Failure of Justice':The court elaborated on the concept of 'failure of justice,' stating it must be concretely established and not merely presumed from procedural lapses. The court noted that the legislative intent behind Sections 462 and 465 of the Code was to prevent the annulment of proceedings due to minor errors unless they result in a failure of justice. The burden is on the accused to demonstrate that such lapses caused substantial prejudice affecting the fairness of the trial.The court concluded that the decisions in Moly v. State of Kerala and Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, which set aside convictions due to the absence of committal proceedings, were per incuriam as they did not consider the binding precedent set by Bhooraji v. State of M.P.. Therefore, the correct legal position is that non-compliance with Section 193 does not vitiate the trial unless it results in a failure of justice or prejudice to the accused.Conclusion:The appeals were directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing on merits, with the court holding that the decision in Bhooraji v. State of M.P. laid down the correct law. The judgments in Moly v. State of Kerala and Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala were overruled to the extent they contradicted Bhooraji.