MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI M R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure 9 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.M.P. No. 7758/2010 is under challenge.

(2.) A protest complaint was filed by the complainant before the court below, alleging offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (v), (x), (xiv) and (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the case has been taken on file as C.P. No.38/2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence, when the special court only was empowered to take cognizance of the offences within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act.

(3.) Presently, after the amendment to Section 14 of the Act, the 2nd proviso has been incorporated which enables the special court to take cognizance of the offences directly without committal. When the said provision was conspicuously absent in Section 14, the matter was governed by the decision of the Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., 2000 1 KerLT 609 (SC). In that decision also, it was emphatically held that the special court has to take cognizance of the offences on committal. Therefore, it is evident that the power to take cognizance is vested with the Special Court alone.