1. Appellant Deewan Singh Rajput has preferred this appeal aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 1st February 2000 passed by Special Judge, Shivpuri (Atrocities) in Special Case No. 39/98 whereby appellant has been convicted under section 456 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment and 6 months rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment respectively.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant Bhatobai belongs to scheduled caste. Appellant Deewan Singh belongs to a caste other than scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. On 16.2.1998 at about 10 p.m. appellant entered in the house of complainant and outraged her modesty using criminal force with ulterior motive. On making alarm by complainant Bhatobai, appellant ran away leaving behind his clothes. FIR (Ex. P-2) has been lodged. Statement of witnesses have been recorded under section 161 of CrPC. Spot map (Ex. P-3) has been prepared and the appellant has been arrested.

3. A charge-sheet under section 3 (I) (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in Special Court (Atrocities) Shivpuri. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 456 of IPC and 3 (I) (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implications.

4. Prosecution examined five witnesses. After hearing both the parties and going through material on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 456 of IPC and 3 (1) (XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him as aforementioned.

5. Aggrieved by impugned judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that learned trial Court committed error and illegality in passing impugned judgment. Learned trial Court committed error in appreciating prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow appeal and set aside impugned judgment of conviction and set aside sentence awarded by learned trial Court.

6. Learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. I have heard both the parties and perused impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon 2004 (2) Crimes 341 (SC) Moly and another v. State of Kerala and 2004 (3) Crimes 605 Girraj Singh and others v. State of M.P. argued that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the Court of competent Magistrate and without committal of the proceeding, learned Special Court took cognizance straightway. Police has committed error in filing charge-sheet straightway in the Special Court, the procedure adopted by the prosecution in filing the straightway challan before Special Court is illegal and stands vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case be remitted back to Special Court and be directed to return challan papers to prosecution and prosecution be directed to file challan papers before the concerning Magistrate, who shall after following the procedure commit the matter to the appropriate Court. The procedure adopted by learned trial Court and judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to law and could not sustain in eye of law.

9. After perusal of record and impugned judgment, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The procedure adopted by prosecution to file straightway challan papers in Special Court is contrary to the judgment of apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel. Learned Special Court cannot taken cognizance of offence under the Act straightway.

10. Consequently, appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned t