Honble RAJESH BALIA, J.—The petition raises a short point.

2. A written complaint was lodged by one Asha Ram Bhil in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer alleging that the petitioners have committed offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 300, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sec. 323 I.P.C. read with S.34 I.P.C. and under S.3 (x) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1989) on January 19,1993. On the receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered as under :

^^19-1-1993 izLrqrdrkZ ifjoknh Jh vkkkjke e; odhy Jh vkj-,l- esgrk mifLFkrA mUgksaus ;g bLrxklk isk fd;kA ewy bLrxklk vUrxZr /kkjk 156 ¼3½ lh-vkj-ih-lh-] esa ,l-,p-vks- tSlyesj dks izsf"kr dj vknsk fn;k tkrk gS fd bLrxklk ds lEcU/k esa eqdnek ntZ dj vuqla/kku dj urhtk U;k;ky; gktk esa kh?kz isk djsaA

3. It is this order directing investigation by the Police made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, that has been challenged.

4. The petitioners case is that the offences under the Act of 1989 are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions notified as Special Court under S. 14 of the Act of 1989. S. 20 of the Act gives over-riding effect to the provisions of the Act of 1989. In view of these provisions, the learned counsel contends that since the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners includes offences under the Act of 1989 which are exclusively triable by Sessions Court notified as Special Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct investigation through the Police. It is only the Special Court which under law is authorised to take cognizance and issue directions to the investigating agency for investigation.

5. His contention is founded on the premises that as aforesaid, as the offences under the Act of 1989 are exclusively triable by the Special Court proceedings for taking cognizance is part of trial, in the context of Act of 1989, it is the Special Court alone which is entitled to take cognizance. Under S. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter to be referred as the Code) the directions to the Police Officer for investigating the offences can be issued only by the Magistrate empowered under S. 190 for taking cognizance of the offences. He also, in this connection placed reliance on Cl. (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 202 of the Code which debars the Magistrate from ordering investigation where offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that S. 190 of the Code empowers only Magistrate to take cognizance of any offences except provided in Chapter XII of the Code. S. 193 of the Code puts a complete embargo on the Sessions Court, which undoubtedly the Special Court under S.14 is, from taking cognizance unless the case has been committed to it by Magistrate under the Code. According to him, the provisions of S.190 and 193 of the Code are not in derogation of any provisions of the Act of 1989 and notwithstanding Ss. 14 and 20 of the Act of 1989, the procedure which is applicable to the investigation and trial under the Act is the same as provided under the Code because the Act of 1989 does not provide any special procedure.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy: it would be profitable to reproduce all the relevant provisions referred to above;

"S. 4 of the Code reads as under:

Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.

4. (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 dealin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document