IMPORTANT POINT
Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not have power to entertain complaint and to take cognizance and trial for offence are to be conducted only in manner provided in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(i) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Section 3(1)(x)-Cognizance of offence on a complaint filed by appellant by Special Court under the Act-High Court quashed proceedings holding that no offence was made out on basis of complaint-Appeal by complainant-Whether Court of Special Judge constituted under the Act had jurisdiction to entertain complaint and take cognizance and issue process against respondent accused? No.
       Held : Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. The legislative intent was to ensure that the offences under the Act were tried by Special Court and Court of Session was specified as a Special Court under Section 14 of the 1989 Act. Even after being so specified as a Special Court the Court of Session continues to be essentially a Court of Session and its designation as a Special Court did 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 of Criminal Procedure which contains a fasciculus of provisions for trial before a Court of Session. (Para 8)
       In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court it could not be contended before us that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directly and to issue process after taking cognizance without the case being committed to it by a competent Magistrate. The question is no longer res integra and, therefore, it must he held that the learned Special Judge in the instant case erred in entertaining a complaint filed before it and in issuing process after taking cognizance without the case being committed to it for trial by a competent Magistrate. Though the High Court has quashed the proceeding on a different ground altogether, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the Special Judge deserves to be set aside so far as it related to its taking cognizance of an offence under the 1989 Act, and issuing process on the basis of the complaint directly made before it by the complainant. (Para 10)
       (ii) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955-Section 7(1)(d)-Appellant complainant, member of State Legislative Assembly claimed belonged to Scheduled Caste known as "Pathiyan"-Respondent was alleged to have made an uttrence "There is an MLA, Kuttappan, that Harijan MLA, he claimed over the table and was dancing-Is this the democratic manner of Antony?-High Court was right in coming to conclusion that Section 7(1)(d) of the Act was not attracted-It has to be shown that words so uttered had effect of insulting appellant on ground of untouchability-By uttering words, respondents could not be said that he insulted or attempted to insult appellant on ground of untouchability-Impugned order quashing proceedings suffered no illegality. (Paras 11 and 12)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The appellant in this appeal by special leave is aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No. 2192 of 1996 dated 21st February, 1997 whereby a learned Judge of the High Court while allowing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed the order of the Special Judge, Thalassery whereby he had taken cognizance of the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 Act and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The High Court held that none of the offences above mentioned were made out on the basis of the complaint and the material placed before the learned Special Judge.

2. In view of the order, which we propose to make, it is neither necessary nor advisable to refer to the facts of the case in detail lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in any proceedings in future. However it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the broad facts which give rise to the instant appeal.

3. The appellant herein, the complainant, claiming to be a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and belonging to a Scheduled Caste known as Pathiyan and practicing as a doctor by profession owing allegiance to the Indian National Congress (I) filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under Act 33 of 1989 at Thalassery. In his complaint he alleged that respondent No.1 belongs to Nair community, which is not a scheduled caste, was a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxists). He at the relevant time held the office of Chief Minister of the State of Kerala and was contesting bye-election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Thalassery Assembly Constituency. A Convention of the Left Democratic Front was convened on September 20, 1996 in the evening at the Town Bank Auditorium, Thalassery in which respondent No.1 made a speech wherein he made certain disparaging observations wilfully and deliberately emphasizing the fact that the complainant belongs to a lower and inferior category of MLA being a member of a scheduled caste. Respondent No.1 emphasised the fact that the appellant was a Harijan and made derogatory remarks about the complainant. This was done in full view of the public assembled in the Auditorium. Respondent No.1 is alleged to have stated as follows:-

"There is an MLA, Kuttappan, that Harijan MLA, he climbed over the table and was dancing. Is this the democratic manners of Antony?"

4. This was the statement attributed to respondent No.1 by witness No.1 examined on behalf of the appellant. According to the complainant respondent No.1 stated:-

"the other thing, that Harijan, one Kuttappan, he was dancing on the table".

5. Though there is a slight variance about the exact words used by respondent No.1, the statement was to this effect.

6. The learned Special Judge on a consideration of the statement of the complainant on oath and the statements of two other witnesses examined before it, came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act was made out. He, therefore, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process summoning respondent No.1 to stand trial.

7. The order of the Special Judge Thalassery was challenged by respondent No.1 before the High Court which by its impugned order quashed the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance, finding that no offence was made out under either of the two Acts. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave. At the threshold counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the Court of Special Judge constituted under the 1989 Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, take cognizance and issue process aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 258

IMPORTANT POINTSpecial Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not have power to entertain complaint and to take cognizance and trial for offence are to be conducted only in manner provided in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not have power to entertain complaint and to take cognizance and trial for offence are to be conducted only in manner provided in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C.