The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of the designated court, the concept of de novo trial, and the irregularity covered under section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER :

Learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur has referred the matter with a view to be considered in suo motu revision and be directed accordingly.

2. The facts of the case are that a Criminal Case No. 2145/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jitendra) arising out of FIR 198/2012 Police Station Nepanagar, Distt. Burhanpur under sections 354, 342, 377 of Indian Penal Code was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 16-7-2011 committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 32/2011. The then learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur made over the case to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur. The trial commenced in that Court and the case was fixed for final arguments on 1-2-2012 and then for judgment on 6-2-2012. On the date of judgment i.e. 6-2-2012, learned I Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the case is triable by Special Court (Designated) established under “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005” and returned back the case to the Sessions Judge for further proceeding observing that the learned Sessions Judge, being the designated Court, had jurisdiction to try the offences pertaining to children as described in “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005”.

3. The Sessions Judge remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class with a direction that the case be committed as per notification of the government dated 17-7-2001 by which Sessions Court has been designated as “Children’s Court” by the State Government with the consent of High Court. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 21-2-2012 again committed the case to Sessions Court and the case was registered as Special Case No. l4/2012. The detailed fact of the case was brought to the knowledge of Sessions Judge (Designated Court) on 25-2-2012 at the stage of arguments for framing of charge. The learned Sessions Judge (designated), Burhanpur felt that trial was conducted by First Additional Sessions Judge who has the same jurisdiction as that of Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge could also be a designated Court under “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005” and since both Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, de novo trial will give rise to various complications, adversely affecting the merits of the case. At this stage, the matter has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge to treat this as a suo motu revision and guide.

4. The questions referred for consideration can be summed up as follows :

(i) Whether there was need to remand back the case to commit it again? To find an answer the following points are also felt to be considered: (ii) Whether the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge caused prejudice to the accused and, therefore, failure of justice. (iii) Whether the trial by the Additional Sessions Judge in place of the designated Court is illegal? (iv) Whether a de novo trial in such circumstances is mandatory?

5. If the Sessions Judge had taken cognizance and made over the case, the Additional Sessions Judge who has concluded the case and felt that the case ought to have been tried by Designated Court and the provisions mandate that the committal proceeding was wrong and the Magistrate is required to pass a fresh order for committal then, definitely, in absence of first order of committal as recalled, there being a new committal order, there has to be a de novo trial. However, at this point of time, it is necessary to answer whether there was need for recalling of order and re-commital by Magistrate.

6. This question was set at rest in Criminal Reference No. 1/2012 [decided on 7-8-2012 by High Court of M.P., reported in 2012(2) MPLJ (Cri) 726] that a Special Court under Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence, when the case is committ