GANGULA ASHOK Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Can a "special Court" which is envisaged in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act') take cognizance of any offence without the case being committed to that Court If it cannot, then appellants cannot raise any grievance at this stage regarding framing of a charge against them as they would get an opportunity for it later.

(3.) First appellant is a practicing advocate and second appellant is his wife who was working as Matron of a Girls' Hostel run by the Social Welfare Department. One Kumari G. Swetha was a resident of the said hostel. On 27-2-1996 the said Swetha lodged a complaint with the police alleging that on 6-1-1996 the first appellant outraged/tried to outrage her modesty. The police after investigation, filed a charge-sheet directly before the Sessions Court, Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) which was designated as the special Court for trial of offences under the Act committed within the territorial limits of the district concerned. In the charge-sheet, first appellant is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act and also Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides first appellant, the investigating officer arrayed his wife as the second appellant for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the offences put against her husband, on the allegation that when Kumari Swetha complained to the second appellant of the misdemeanor committed by the first accused, she tried to persuade the complainant not to divulge it to anybody else. Subsequently the police dropped Section 354 of the IPC from the charge-sheet and filed a revised charge sheet pursuant to a query put by the Special Judge concerned.