Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 708
Karnataka High Court
M.B.RAMACHANDRAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, J.C.NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 09-15-06
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1229 of 2006.
H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy,Sri A.V. Ramakrishna
Headnote:Karnataka Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 -Section 44 - Notice of no-confidence - Moved both against Chairman and Vice-Chairman - Procedure. See, Rules.
Cases Referred: AIR 1999 SC 1281: (1999)3 SCC 432; 1988(3) Kar.L.J. 562 (DB): ILR 1989 Kar. 123 (DB).
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -Discharge of accused -Section 14 (as amended by Karnataka Act No. 35/2003) -Discharge of accused -Sought on two grounds -One, that, charge sheet was directly submitted to special Court without there being a committal order -Two, investigation was conducted by ACP whereas, it should have been by an officer not below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police -Need of committal by Magistrate is done away with by State amendment -ACP is a person of cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police -Hence, there is no illegality -Petition is devoid of any merit.
VWrit Jurisdiction
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - VArticle 226 -Writ jurisdiction -Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 amended Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 -Vires of amendment questioned under writ jurisdiction with regard to 1955 Act -Court declared the entire amendment Act as invalid -Held, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
[B. P. Singh and Arun Kumar, JJ]: Writ Petition did not concern personal Inams and related only to religious and charitable Inams. In this view of the matter, the High Court was in error in granting relief in such wide terms declaring the entire Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid.
Case Referred: AIR 1960 SC 378: (1960) 2 SCR 331; 199 AIR SCW 2350: AIR 1999 SC 2286: (1999) 4 SCC 11; AIR 1973 SC 291: (1973) 2 SCC 35.
Constitution of India -Writ Jurisdiction -Article 226 -Writ jurisdiction -Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 amended Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 -Vires of amendment questioned under writ jurisdiction with regard to 1955 Act -Court declared the entire amendment Act as invalid -Held, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. [B. P. Singh and Arun Kumar, JJ]: Writ Petition did not concern personal Inams and related only to religious and charitable Inams. In this view of the matter, the High Court was in error in granting relief in such wide terms declaring the entire Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid.
Case Referred: AIR 1960 SC 378: (1960) 2 SCR 331; 199 AIR SCW 2350: AIR 1999 SC 2286: (1999) 4 SCC 11; AIR 1973 SC 291: (1973) 2 SCC 35.
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968 - Rule 49 - Notice of No-confidence - Moved both against chairman and Vice-Chairman - Individual notices in respect of chairman and vice-chairman have to be given. [H.V.G.Ramesh, J]: Rule contemplates the procedure for submitting notice of No-confidence motion against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the APMC Committee. As could be seen from the file, two notice of requisitions have been submitted by respondents 8 to 16 against the Chaimran and Vice-Chairman, who are the appellants herein. to consider the no-confidence motion requisitions, the special meeting was convened by the 4th respondent to be presided over by the respondent 3, who is the authorised representiative of the Director of APMC. A bare reading of Rule 49 of the Rules abundantly makes it clear that there must be separate and distinct notice of rrequisitions to be submitted by 1/3rd members of the Committee against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, if the members intended to move such motion of no-confidence against them. For the purpose of moving such no0-confidence motion, the procedure to be followed in prescribed under the Rules. The said procedure has to be held mandatory because the resolution that would be passed expressing no-confidence against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman would ential serious civil consdquences. Their statutory right to continue as office-bearers of the APMC will be deprived of and therefor ethe procedure laid down for this purpose has to be held as mandatory. This would clearly indicate that such notices of requisition against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman must be separately taken up, moved by the authorised respresntative of the Director in the meeting that would be convended for the purpose of considering such notices.
Cases Referred: AIR 1999 SC 1281: (1999)3 SCC 432; 1988(3) Kar.L.J. 562 (DB): ILR 1989 Kar. 123 (DB).
This revision is against the order of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners for discharge. The petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagar Sub-Division, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 3(1), clause (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. On two grounds they sought for discharge. Firstly, it was urged that the prosecuting agency cannot directly submit charge-sheet to the Special Court as a Special Court being the Sessions Court cannot try a case without there being an order of committal. Secondly, it is submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, any alleged offence has to be investigated by the officer not below the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, rank who is specially authorised by the State Government.
3. The Special Judge after having heard the matter regarding discharge referred to the decision relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners in Gangula Ashok and Another v State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules and held that in the light of the amendment of Section 14 of the Act taking cognizance of the offence in the Court of original jurisdiction and trying the offence is perfectly legal. Meeting the argument that the matter was not investigated into by appropriate I.O. the Court held that the A.C.P. being an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is the appropriate investigating authority under the Act. Having thus held against the petitioners on both the points, the Court below dismissed the application. Accordingly, the application has been dismissed.
4. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in Gangula Ashok's case, the case cannot be directly tried by the Sessions Judge by entertaining charge-sheet without there being an order of committal by the Magistrate and the decisions in Gangula Ashok's case; Manoj Kumar Giri u State of Jharkhand and Another1 and also the decision of this Court in Cri. R.P. No. 12 of 2003, dated 19-9-2003 are relied upon to contend that there cannot be any scope for taking cognizance and trying the case without there being an order of committal by the Magistrate. The same is resisted by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed.
6. At the outset, the learned High Court Government Pleader draws attention to the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 2003 whereby the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2002 has been amended and the amendment received the assent of the President of India on the Thirteenth day of August, 2003. The relevant provision reads:
"2. Amendment of Section 14.-In Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Central Act 33 of 1989), for the words "to try offences under this Act", the words "to take cognizance of offences under this Act as a Court of original jurisdiction and to try such offences" shall be substituted".
7. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gangula Ashok's case, is based on the original Act as it stood before amendment. The provision having been amended subsequently, wherein the need for committal by the Magistrate has been done away with. By the said amendment the Special Court was empowered to take the cognizance and try such offences as a Court of original jurisdiction.
8. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable as rightly noted by the Trial Court. Further, by the circular issued by the DG and IGP, Karnataka State as per Rule 7 dated 8-1-1998 s
