VERY IMPORTANT POINT
1. Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot take cognizance of any offence without the case being committed to that Court. A complaint or charge sheet cannot straightway be laid before Special Court.
2. Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offence directly, without case being committed to it by a Magistrate.

Headnote:(i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 193-Cognizance of offences by Session Court-Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offence directly, without case being committed to it by a Magistrate.
       Section 193 of Code of Criminal Procedure imposes an interdict on all Courts of Session against taking cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction. It can take cognizance only if "the case has been committed to it by a magistrate", as provided in the Code. Two segments have been indicated in Section 193 as exceptions to the aforesaid interdict. One is, when the Code itself has provided differently in express language regarding taking of cognizance, and the second is when any other law has provided differently in express language regarding taking cognizance of offences under such law. The word expressly" which is employed in Section 193 denoting to those exceptions is indicative of the legislative mandate that a Court of Session can depart from the interdict contained in the section only if it is provided differently in clear and unambiguous terms. In other words, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being committed to it by a magistrate. (Para 10)
       (ii) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Section 3(i)(xi) and Section 14-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 4, 5, and 193-Cognizance of offence by Special Court-Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is a Court of Session-Special Court cannot take cognizance of any offence without case being committed to that Court by Magistrate-A complaint or charge sheet cannot straightway be laid before Special Court.
       Section 14 of the Act says that "for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act." So it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Session in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. 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". (Paras 8 and 9)
       Neither in the Code nor in the Act there is 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 straightway 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. (Para 11)
       A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that subject to the provisions in other enactments all offences under other laws shall also be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with under the provisions of the Code. This means that if other enactment contains any provision which is contrary to the provisions of the Code, such other functions would apply in place of the particular provision of the Code. If there is no such contrary provision in other laws, then provisions of the code would apply to the matters covered thereby. Nor can Section 5 of the Code be brought in aid for supporting the view that the Court of Session specified under the Act can obviate the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code as long as there is no provision in the Act empowering the Special Court to take conginzance of the offence as a court of original jurisdiction. (Paras 13 and 14)
       (iii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 193-Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Sections 3 and 14-Cognizance of offences by Session Court-Special Court under SC ST Act taking cognizance of offence straight way-High Court setting aside order to present case before Magistrate-Pointing out interdict contained in Section 193 Cr.P.C.-High Court, however directing that after committal of case to Special Court, Court shall frame charges-Held : no such direction to frame charge could have been given-It is for Special Court to decide action to be taken after hearing parties. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave Granted.

2. Can a "special court which is envisaged in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short the Act ) take cognizance of any offence without the case being committed to that court? If it cannot, then appellants cannot raise any grievance at this stage regarding framing of a charge against them as they would get an opportunity for it later.

3. First appellant is a practicing advocate and second appellant is his wife who was working as Matron of a Girls Hostel run by the Social Welfare Department. One Kumari G. Swetha was a resident of the said hostel. On 27.2.1996 the said Swetha lodged a complaint with the police alleging that on 6.1.1996 the first appellant outraged/tried to outrage her modesty. The police after investigation, filed a charge-sheet directly before the Sessions Court, Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) which was designated as the special court for trial of offences under the Act committed within the territorial limits of the district concerned. In the charge-sheet, first appellant is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act and also Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides first appellant, the investigation officer arrayed his wife as the second appellant for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the offences put against her husband, on the allegation that when Kumari Swetha complained to the second appellant of the misdemeanor committed by the first accused, she tried to persuade the complainant not to divulge it to anybody else. Subsequently the police dropped Section 354 of the IPC from the charge-sheet and filed a revised charge-sheet pursuant to a query put by the Special Judge concerned.

4. A charge was framed by the Special Judge against both the appellants for the aforesaid offences respectively. It was presumably at the said stage that the appellants moved the High Court for quashing the charge as well as the charge-sheet on various reasons. A Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh found that the procedure adopted by the investigating officer in filing the charge-sheet straight-away to the Special Court was not in accordance with law, and the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the case having been committed to that court. Accordingly the learned Single Judge set aside the proceedings of the Special Court and directed the charge-sheet and the connected papers to be returned to the police officer concerned who, in turn, was directed to present the same before a Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class "for the purpose of committal to the Special Court". Learned Single Judge further directed that on such committal the Special Court shall frame appropriate charges in the light of the observations in the order."

5. Appellants have filed this appeal by special leave in challenge of the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

6. We have to consider whether the Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence straightway without the case being committed to him. If the Special Court is a Court of Session the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) would stand in the way. It reads thus :

"193 Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session.-Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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 under this Code."

7. So the first aspect to be considered is whether the Special Court is a Court of Session. Chapter II of the Code deals with "Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices". Section 6, which falls thereunder says that "there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-

(i) Courts of Session;"

(The other clas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 217

Cases Referred (4)