High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT
UDHABA ALIAS UDHABA CHARAN KAR - Appellant
Versus
GORA BINDHANI - Respondent
CRI. MISC. 402 Of 1994
Decided On : 07/18/1994
JURISDICTION - SPECIAL COURT - ACT, 1989 - SECTION 14, 20 - CR. P. C. , 1973 - SECTION 4, 26, 190, 193, 220 - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURT TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT AND IPC - HELD, SPECIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT AND IPC IF THE ACTS ALLEGED CONSTITUTE ATROCITIES AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS OFFENCE UNDER THE IPC.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed alleging commission of various offences punishable under the IPC and S. 3 of the Act against the petitioners. The SDJM took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of summons to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the SDJM to deal with the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the Act and IPC if the acts alleged constitute atrocities as defined under Section 3 of the Act, as well as offence under the IPC.
Issues: Whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the Act and IPC if the acts alleged constitute atrocities as defined under Section 3 of the Act, as well as offence under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act provides for specifying a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offence under the Act. When a Court of Session is so specified as a Special Court, it ceases to be a Court of Session as envisaged in the Code and it becomes a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Section 220, Cr. P. C. provides that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
Final Decision: The order of the SDJM taking cognizance of the offences and directing issue of summons to the petitioners was set aside. The Magistrate was directed to return the complaint for presentation before the proper Court.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) AN interesting question is raised about jurisdiction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to deal with complaints alleging commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc'), along side those punishable under S. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the 'act' ).
( 2 ) IN the case at hand a complaint was filed alleging commission of various offences punishable under the IPC and S. 3 of the Act against the petitioners. By order D/- 27-1-1994 learned SDJM, Udala took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of summons to the present petitioners. With reference to various provisions of the Act, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned SDJM, Udala had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The stand of the opposite party in essence is that the offences punishable under the IPC were triable by the learned SDJM and there was no illegality in the action of the learned SDJM.
( 3 ) A conspectus of various provisions of the Act and the Criminal P. C. 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') is necessary for resolution of the controversy. Section 14 of the Act provides as follows :"special Court.- 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 Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. "there is no dispute that Sessions Court of Mayurbhanj, Baripada is the Court of Session specified to be a Special Court to try offences under the Act. Section 4 of the Cr. P. C. deals with trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. The said section has two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) deals with investigation, inquiry and trial etc. of all offences under the IPC. Sub-section (2) deals with all offences under any other laws. It provides that all offences under any other laws shall be investigated, inquired into and 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 investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. A conjoint reading of both the sub-sections makes it clear that in the absence of special provisions made in the statute indicating that the offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute and same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Cr. P. C. , the provisions of the Special Law would apply and prevail over the Cr. P. C. When the special law does not prescribe any particular procedure, provisions of the Cr. P. C. will govern the field of inquiry and trial of the case by the criminal Court. Cr. P. C. is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiry, trial, or, otherwise to deal with the offences.
( 4 ) SECTION 26 of the Cr. P. C. prescribes criminal courts by which the offences are triable under the IPC or other laws. There is no provision in the Cr. P. C. which bars trial of a case by superior Magistrate, notwithstanding that it is competent for a Magistrate of a lower grade to entertain the case. A court of session has jurisdiction to try a case once it has properly come before it, that is, on a legal order of commitment. The Special Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Whenever question arises as to what are its powers, that court is to be considered as a Court of original jurisdiction undaunted by any designation claptrap. This aspect was highlighted by the Apex Court in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718: (1984 Cri LJ 647 ). The Act provides for specifying a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offence u
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.