SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 148

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY
S.Madhava Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 02-26-96

The Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Headnote:

SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 14 - SPECIAL COURT - JURISDICTION - POWER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE - SECTION 193 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - DISCRETION OF THE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court to take cognizance of the offenses and the failure of the Court to examine all the witnesses shown in the complaint as required under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code. 2. Section 193 of the Code, which prohibits a Court of Session from taking cognizance of any offense as a Court of original jurisdiction, is not applicable to the Special Court. 3. The word "try" in Section 14 of the Act is wide enough to cover both enquiry and trial, and the Special Court has the power to take cognizance of the offenses under the Act. 4. The examination of witnesses under Section 200 of the Code is not mandatory for the Special Court, and it is left to the discretion of the Court to decide whether to examine the witnesses or not.

Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses under the Act. 2. Whether the Special Court is required to examine all the witnesses shown in the complaint under Section 200 of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code. 2. Section 193 of the Code, which prohibits a Court of Session from taking cognizance of any offense as a Court of original jurisdiction, is not applicable to the Special Court. 3. The word "try" in Section 14 of the Act is wide enough to cover both enquiry and trial, and the Special Court has the power to take cognizance of the offenses under the Act. 4. The examination of witnesses under Section 200 of the Code is not mandatory for the Special Court, and it is left to the discretion of the Court to decide whether to examine the witnesses or not.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Special Court was directed to proceed with the case expeditiously.

V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the 1st accused in C. C. No. 204 of 1994 pending on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act ) at Mahaboobnagar. Upon a complaint filed u/sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) by the complainant, who has been impleaded as3rd respondent, alleging commission of offences u/sec. 3 (1) (viii) and (ix) of the Act, the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the above offences in C. C. NO. 204/94 and issued process against the petitioner. This petition is filed u/sec. 482 of the Code seeking to quash the above proceedings.

( 2 ) THE contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are two fold: (I) The Special Court, being a Court of Session is not empowered to take cognizance of the offences complained of, in view of the prohibition placed on the. Sessions Court under Section 193 of the Code; (ii) The mandate contained u/sec. 200 of the Code to examine all the witnesses has not been followed for the reason that the learned Judge has not examined any of the two witnesses shown in the complaint, before taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process.

( 3 ) THE first contention appears formidable in view of Sections 190 and 193 of the Code. Section 190 of the Code provides for a Magistrate of First Class to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint, upon a police report or upon an information received from any person. Section 193 of the Code expressly prohibits a Court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as Court of original jurisdiction, unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code or expressly provided by this Code or by any other law. It is therefore clear that only a Magistrate of First Class is clothed with the power to take cognizance of any offence. The Court of Session cannot act as a Court of original jurisdiction and it is expressly prohibited from taking cognizance of any offence. However, as an exception, the Court of Session is empowered to take cognizance if it is so provided under the Code or by any other law.

( 4 ) SECTION 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act empowers the State Government, by notification to specify for each district, a Court of Session to be a Special Court, to try the offences under the Act. The object is to ensure speedy trial for the offences under the Act which are offences against particular sections of society in particular and the society in general. The Court of Session at Mahaboobnagar in this case is notified by the governmentas a Special Court u/sec. 14 of the Act There is no provision under the Act providing for any special procedure to be adopted to try the offences by the Special Court, i. e. , for the investigation, enquiry or for the trial of the offences arising under the Act other than empowering the Special Court to try the offences under the Act. Section 4 (2) of the Code states that in the absence of any provision laying down the procedure for the investigation, inquiring into and trying the offences under the Act, the procedure laid down under the Code has to be followed, for investigation, inquiring into and trying such offences. It therefore, appears that the Spl. Courtis armed with all the powers of a Criminal court of original jurisdiction including the power to take cognizance for enquiring into and trial and otherwise to deal with all the offences under the act, in accordence with the provisions of the Code, subject only to the contrary provisions made under the Act for the trial of such offences.

( 5 ) BUT then how to get over the embargo placed by Section 193 of the Code? the Special Judge being a Sessions Judge is prohibited u/sec. 193 of the Code to take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magist







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top