Surendra Kumar,J.:-

Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ram Surat Saroj, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The accused persons Faujdar Bind, Chiranju Bind, Ranno and Shitla Bind? revisionists herein preferred this revision against the order dated 29.3.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division) II, Court No.8, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, in Case No.155 of 2004 State Vs. Chiranju and others whereby the learned Magistrate relying upon the report submitted by Circle Officer, Gyanpur dated 14.1.2003 took cognizance under Section 3 ( 1) 10 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and committed the case for trial to the Special Judge SC/ST Act fixing 29.4.2005 for trial.

3. The relevant facts for deciding the revision are that the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons who are revisionists herein under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. relating to Crime No.281 of 2002, Police Station Unjh, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. The charge sheet was submitted against the three accused persons on 16.9.2002 and against one accused on 20.9.2002. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet. Thereafter, Circle Officer/Deputy S.P. Investigating Officer, recorded statement of the complainant Smt. Draupadi who supported the prosecution case in her statement including allegation relating to Section 3 ( 1) 10 SC/ST Act.The Investigating Officer after recording her statement submitted the report on 14.1.2003 to the effect that there is prima facie evidence regarding commission of the offence against the revisionists under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 ( 1) 10 SC/ST Act.

4. The Investigating Officer in his report dated 14.1.2003 clearly mentioned that the charge sheet had already been submitted. It was then the learned Magistrate after considering the application filed by the prosecution and going through the affidavit of Smt. Draupadi and subsequent report submitted by the Investigating Officer on 14.1.2003 observed that offence under Section 3 ( 1) 10 SC/ST Act has been committed by the accused revisionists, therefore, he passed the impugned order and committed the case to the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, taking cognizance of the same. Thus the order whereby cognizance under Section 3 ( 1) 10 SC/ST Act was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the report submitted by the Circle Office/Deputy S.P. is under challenge in the instant revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has advanced following arguments:

( i) that the learned Magistrate without going through the case diary passed the impugned order;

( ii) that Circle Officer/Deputy S.P. who is Investigating Officer of the case submitted his report on 14.1.2003 under Section 3 ( 1) 10 SC/ST Act without any prescribed proforma. The proforma meant for filing the charge sheet was not adopted by him.

( iii) that the learned Magistrate committed illegality as he did not adopt the procedure provided to proviso to sub-section ( 2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he was bound to record statement of the witnesses in support of the allegation under Section 3 ( 1) 10 of the SC/ST Act.?

6. Per contra learned AGA has submitted that subsequent report/charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on 14.1.2003 cannot be allowed to lose its importance merely because the same was not submitted on the proforma prescribed. The contents of the letter/report filed by Deputy S.P. should be considered in letter and spirit. Regarding proviso to sub-section ( 2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned AGA has submitted that the Magistrate was not bound to advert to that procedure as the same was not applicable in this case.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists in support of his contention has cited decision of this Court in the case of Pakhandu and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [ 2002 ( 1) JIC 104 ( All) wherein it was held that cogni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document