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

2004 Supreme(MP) 571

S.SAMVATSAR
GIRRAJ SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.D.Mahore, N.P.DWIVEDI

S. SAMVATSAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the applicants accused challenging an order dated 11/4/2000 passed by Special Judge, Guna in case No. 39/98 S. I. whereby the Special Judge has transferred the matter to the concerned Magistrate for proceeding with the committal proceedings. Counsel for applicants submits that the said order is illegal and contrary to law.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the applicants accused for committing offence under Sections 302/34 and 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Said compaint was registered as crime No. 1-9-1998. Challan was filed by the prosecution directly before the Sessions Court, Guna and was not committed to the said court according to the provisions of law. Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and another v. State of AP has laid down that the cognizance of offence under the Atrocities Act cannot be taken by the Special Court without being committing to that court by the Magistrate and a complaint or charge-sheet cannot be straightway filed to the Special Court.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the applicant has also relied on the judgment of Apex court in t





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