KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused in Private Complaint No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge, Raichur. The case was numbered as Special a. C. NO. 20 of 1994.

( 2 ) THE complainant-respondent filed a private complaint directly in the Court of Special Judge, Raichur on 7-4-1993 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 506 (11) read with Section 109 of the IPC and under Section 3 (lxx) and (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act No. 33 of 1989) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') along with other offences under the Penal code.

( 3 ) THE case was referred as a private complaint No. 3 of 1993 by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Special Judge after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses passed an order registering the case as Special A. C. No. 20 of 1994 and issuing summons to the petitioner and five others. The petitioners being aggrieved by the entire proceedings initiated by the Special Judge, Raichur have preferred this criminal petition.

( 4 ) THE short but important question that arise for consideration is: whether a Special Court designated under the Act can take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 193 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code')?

( 5 ) SECTION 193 of the Code reads as follows: "193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Sessions. 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". A reading of Section 193 indicates that except otherwise 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 it has been committed to it by the Magistrate. In other words, in the absence of any express provision under the Code or under any other law in force it is not permissible for a Court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a Court of Original Jurisdiction unless it has been committed by the Magistrate.

( 6 ) SECTION 14 of the Act indicates that the State Government shall with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court by the notification specify for each district a Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try offences under the Act.

( 7 ) WHILE the matter was being argued by Mr. R. B. Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners it was brought to my notice that this Court in State of Karnataka v Nagappa and Others, had pronounced that no committal proceedings is necessary for the Special court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act. The Court held at paragraphs 61 and 62 as follows:"61. If the acts alleged in the complaint constitute not only of-fence/s under the Act, but also under the Indian Penal Code, the special Court can take cognizance of that complaint in respect of offence/s under the Indian Penal Code even without an order of commitment by a Magistrate as provided by Section 193 of the code. In such a situation, the Special Court can try not only the offence/s under the Act, but also those falling under the Indian penal Code. 62. In this context, it is worthwhile to note the provisions contained in Section 20, which gives over-riding effect to the provisions contained in the Act over any other law for the time being in force. Section 20 also throws much light that the provisions contained in Section 193 cannot be of any consequence to restrict the jurisdiction of the Special Court". The Court relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court In re director General of Prosecution. This view was confirmed by the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Hareendran v Sarada. The view taken by the Kerala High Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document