HAREENDRAN Vs. SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Crl.M.C. is to quash a complaint filed by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottapalam for offence under S.3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Contention of the petitioner is that the Magistrate ought to have seen that he has no jurisdiction to initiate committal, proceedings and hence initiation of the same cannot be sustained.

(2.) In view of the contention that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the Act, Thomas J. held that principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Re ( 1992 (2) KLT 748 ) require reconsideration. The matter was posted before a Division Bench of this Court and that Court referred the case to be heard by a Full Bench of this Court.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration is whether committal proceedings is necessary or not in a case under the Act. In Re (1992 (2) KLT 748) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Sessions Judge as Special Court constituted under the Act can take cognizance of the offences even in a case where offences under the Penal Code are also included without committal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions contended that the Act does not envisage committal proceedings and as the Act has been enacted for speedy and expeditious trial and disposal of such cases, committal proceedings was never contemplated by the Legislature. It is also contended by them that if committal proceedings is insisted upon, it would cause further delay in the trial and very object of the statute would be defeated. It is their further contention that the committal proceedings would be disadvantageous to the complainant as well as the accused. According to them, as the Act is a self contained one and as it confers original jurisdiction on the special court and as it does not even hint faintly that committal proceedings is necessary by implication, the matter which was never intended under the statute cannot be incorporated in it.