Special Courts constituted under the Atrocities Act are Courts of original criminal jurisdiction and have the power to take cognizance of offences under the Act without a committal order from a Magistrate.

A.L VAIDYA, J.—Both these appeals are being taken up together as an important common question of law is involved in them. However, so far as the merit is concerned, both the appeals have distinct facts.

2. In Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1993, the accused-respondents were prosecuted under Section 143/458 IPC read with Sections 3 (i) & (xi) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called as "the Atrocities Act") and after trial, they were acquitted by the Special Court (Sessions Judge), Mandi.

3. In Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1995 the accused-respondent was prosecuted under Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act and, after trial, was acquitted by the Special Court (Sessions Judge), Una.

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh has come up in appeal against the acquittal order in both the cases.

5. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1996, Dya Singh and another v. Narad and 5 others, decided on October 29, 1996, held that the Special Court was not legally empowered to take cognizance of the offence under the Atrocities Act and it could be so done on the accused having been committed to it in accordance with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Single Judge thus came to the conclusion that on the basis of the above proposition of law, the Special Court, Mandi had erred in taking cognizance of the offence directly without the accused having been committed to it under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, the order passed by it on 15-12-1992 was bad on the fact of it. On this date, that is, 15-12-1992, the Special Court came to the conclusion that no case under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Atrocities Act was made out and, therefore, the Presiding Officer ordered the case to be sent to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, for its disposal in Accordance with law, either by himself or by a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter.

6. The State has assailed the acquittal order passed in the aforesaid two cases by preferring two separate appeals, referred to above. Before these appeals could be taken up on merit, the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has come in the way of disposal of these appeals. According to the learned Deputy Advocate-General, Shri M.S. Guleria, in case the aforesaid proposition disposed of by the learned Single Judge is accepted, both the appeals have to be sent back for committal proceedings as the learned Special Court without commitment could not take cognizance of the offence under the Atrocities Act. However, learned Deputy Advocate-General further submitted that the proposition of law laid down by the learned Single Judge does not appear to be a correct and valid proposition. It is with this background that both these appeals have been taken up by the Division Bench for hearing learned counsel for the parties with respect to the aforesaid proposition.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard in detail and they have advanced the arguments in a most effective and useful manner.

8. The relevant portions of the judgment of the learned Single Judge run as under: "At the very out-set, it may be stated that in dealing with the present case the Courts below have shown their lack of knowledge with regard to the necessary legal provisions. As stated above, initially a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was presented to the Special Court, Mandi for the trial of respondents 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 147 and 149, Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the Act. It reads : "For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Sess