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

1992 Supreme(Ker) 302

K.SREEDHARAN, L.MANOHARAN
Re : Director General Of Prosecution, – Appellant
Versus
In Re : Director General Of Prosecution – Respondent


Judgment :-

SREEDHARAN, J.

This reference under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the Sessions Judge, Thalassery. He is the Special Court specified under section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to try offences under that Act. Questions referred by him are :-

(1) What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Special Court when it receives a final report disclosing offences punishable under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and

(2) If the course followed by this Court in taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code also along with offences punishable under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were (as it appears to be) wrong, what further procedure is to be followed.

2. Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is in the following terms :-

"For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with



































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