The Special Court under the SC/ST Act can take cognizance of offences without prior commitment from a Magistrate and amendments have no retrospective effect unless expressly stated.

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein filed private complaint on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal against the accused 1 to 3, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(ii), 3(1)(v), 3(1)xv), 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Sections 307, 506, 447, 324 and 350 read with 34 IPC. On reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., FIR No.260/2010 was registered on the file of SHO P.S. Mills Colony, Warangal. Initially, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, N.Ajay Kumar, took up investigation and subsequently the case was investigated by Dr.P.Lavanya Naik Jadav, SDPO and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet dated 6.6.2012 stating that no offence is established against the accused A-1 to A-3 under Sections 307, 447, 452, 506, 349, 350 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (v)(vii) (xv); except under (1) (x) of the Act.

2. Accordingly, the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal committed the case to the court of sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and the case is numbered as S.S.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act cases cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. The stage of the case is that the schedule for the trail has been fixed.

3. In the meanwhile, the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (No.1 of 2016) has been notified in the gazettee of India extraordinary on 1.1.2016, with effect from 26.2.2016.

4. Section 14(1) of Amendment Act, 2015 empowers the Special Court to directly take cognizance of offences under the Act. When the case matured for trial, the de facto complainant filed S.R. Nos.341 and 342 of 2016 in SC.No.54 of 2012 under Section 4(1) and (2) of the Amendment Act of 2015 seeking administrative enquiry against the 2^nd investigating officer i.e., Dr.P.Lavanya Naik Jadav, SDPO, on the grounds that she has omitted the offences under the IPC. As alleged by complainant, without conducting proper enquiry; failed to submit her report in C.No.35/SDPO-WRL/2012 dated 6.8.2012 and also failed to collect the injury certificates from the MGM Hospital, Warangal.

5. The case of the de facto complainant is that under Section 14(1) of Amendment Act, 2015 the Special Court assumes the jurisdiction of the original court. Accordingly, the said court can take cognizance of the offence as alleged in the petition, and order for administrative enquiry as envisaged under Section 4(1) and (2) of the Amendment Act of 2015 against the second investigating officer. The trial court by order dated 25.4.2016, held that as the Amendment Act of 2015 came into effect from 26.1.2016 and no retrospective effect is given, moreover, the charge sheet was filed on 6.6.2012, therefore, the court cannot direct further investigation in the FIR or can take cognizance directly and order for administrative enquiry against the 2^nd investigating officer. Accordingly rejected the petition.

6. Subsequently, the de facto complainant filed the present protest petition in S.R.No.586/2016 in S.S.C.54/2012 under Section 14 of the Amendment Act of 2015 read with Section 190(i)(a) of the Cr.P.C. praying to take all appropriate steps to reframe charges against the accused. By the impugned order dated 18.5.2016, the trial court rejected the petition and the relevant portion of the order is as under:

7. (iii) . . . Therefore, as per the settled law, under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the Special Court is essentially a Court of Sessions and it can take cognizance of the offence only when the case is committed