Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.A.A. Khan
Hanuman Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 1994
Decided On : 11/27/1996
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT, 1949 - SECTION 10(B), 10(H) - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - SPECIAL LAW - TRIAL OF OFFENCES - COMPETENCY OF SPECIAL JUDGE - SECTION 14, SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - RULE 27, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES, 1955 - EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES - SECTION 200, CRPC - EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED - SECTION 313, CRPC - IRREGULARITIES - SECTION 465, CRPC - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PETITION - NO FAILURE OF JUSTICE.:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the Central Reserve Police Force, was convicted by an Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for offenses under Sections 10(b) and 10(h) read with Section 9(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The petitioner appealed to the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, who confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the Special Judge, and the regularity of the trial proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was competent to try the petitioner as the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 is a special law and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are inapplicable to matters covered by the Act. 2. The Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal as the Sessions Judge was competent to transfer the appeal to the Special Judge, who was also an Additional Sessions Judge exercising the powers of a Sessions Judge. 3. Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, dealing with disciplinary matters, is not relevant to the issue of the petitioner's trial. 4. The trial was not vitiated by the non-examination of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC as the complaint was made in writing by a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties. 5. The petitioner was properly examined under Section 313 CrPC and the trial proceedings were fair and regular. 6. Any irregularity in the proceedings was cured by the provisions of Section 465 CrPC as no failure of justice was occasioned to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class had jurisdiction to try the petitioner. 2. Whether the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal. 3. Whether Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, was violated. 4. Whether the trial was vitiated by the non-examination of the complainant and witnesses. 5. Whether the petitioner was properly examined under Section 313 CrPC. 6. Whether there were any irregularities in the trial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 is a special law and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are inapplicable to matters covered by the Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was competent to try the petitioner. 2. The Sessions Judge was competent to transfer the petitioner's appeal to the Special Judge, who was also an Additional Sessions Judge exercising the powers of a Sessions Judge. Therefore, the Special Judge had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal. 3. Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, dealing with disciplinary matters, is not relevant to the issue of the petitioner's trial. 4. The complaint was made in writing by a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties, and therefore, the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC. 5. The petitioner was properly examined under Section 313 CrPC and the trial proceedings were fair and regular. 6. Any irregularity in the proceedings was cured by the provisions of Section 465 CrPC as no failure of justice was occasioned to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the trial proceedings.
M.A.A. Khan, J.-Vide his Judgment and order dated April 21, 1990 the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 3rd Battalion CrPC Imphal, Manipur convicted the petitioner of the offences under Section 10(b) and 10(h) read with Section 9(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act of 1949’) and sentenced him to imprisonment in the Unit Quarter Guard for five days i.e. from 21-4-90 to 25-4-9.0. The period of his judicial custody in Quarter Guard from 17-4-90 to 20-4-90 was directed to be treated as simple Imprisonment. In appeal the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer did not find the case falling within the purview of Section 9(b) of Act of 1949 and therefore confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences Under Section 10(b), and 10(h) of the Act of 1949. Hence this revision petition Under Section 397, CrPC
2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was that he, being a member of the Force on 16-4-90 at about 8.30 PM .Kicked another member, Sh. B. R. Rao, on the face causing him multiple simple injuries on mouth, lips and teeth. On examination of the record of the learned Magistrate I am satisfied that the statements of PW. 1 N. K. Harjindra Singh, PW.2 N.K. Kishan Chand, PW.3 HC/Carp. B. R. Rao injured and PW.4 Dr. K. N. Rao, recorded during the trial of the petitioner fully prove that the petitioner struck, with his boots, NK/Carp. B.R. Rao on face. Mr. A. I. Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this point. Commission of an offence punishable Under Section 10(b)/10(h) of the Act of 1949 thus stood fully proved against the petitioner and his conviction, therefore, is sustainable on facts.
3. Mr. Verma urged that Mr. G.N. Kabadi, the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was not competent to try, convict and sentence the petitioner as the powers of a Magistrate of the first or second Class were not Conferred upon him by the Rajasthan High Court or any other High Court. Reference in this behalf was made to Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the CrPC for short). On a combined reading of the relevant provisions of law I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Verma.
4. Sections 4, 5 and 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read as under: Section 4: Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws :-
.(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
.(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5: Saving :Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Section 26: Courts by which offences are triable:-Subject to the other provisions of this Code (a any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by
.(i) the High Court, or
.(ii) the Court of Sessions, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable;
.(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by
.(i) the High Court, or
.(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.
5. The ‘special law’ and the ‘local law’ referred to in Section 5 have been defined as under in Sections 4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
