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

1994 Supreme(All) 129

J.K.MATHUR
PAPPU SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
I.Murtaza

J. K. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THERE revisions are directed against the orders passed, by the Additional Sessions Judges taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party.

( 2 ) THE main contention raised on behalf of the revisionsists is that cognizance of an offence can be taken only by a Magistrate under Section 190, Cr. P. C. and in view of the fact that the aforesaid Act does not provide for any different mode of taking of cognizance, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable. Cognizance can therefore, be taken only by a Magistrate and not by Additional Sessions Judge who may be specified as a special court in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act.

( 3 ) SECTION 14 reads as follows : -"14. 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











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