SAURABH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting question, which emerges in the revision, for consideration before this Court in the present case, which has been preferred by the revisionists. The proposed accused against whom the order under Sec. 156(3) has been filed by the Sessions Court, Pauri Garhwal, on 17/5/2019, whereby, an application preferred by the complainant under Sec. 156(3) has been allowed by the District Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 23 of 2019 'Vimla Devi vs. Saurabh Joshi and Another'.

(2.) Admittedly, the offence complained of is an offence which falls to be an offence within the ambit under a special statute framed by the legislature called as the U.P. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as an 'Act'). Before venturing into the merits of the matter, and the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists, it would be appropriate to deal with the manner in which the Special Courts created under the Special Act are constituted to take cognizance of the offence contemplated under the Act of 1989. It would be appropriate to quote Sec. 14 of the Act of 1989:

(3.) Sec. 14 of the Act confers a special jurisdiction and power with the State Government to establish an exclusive special courts for the purposes of trying of the said offence under the Special Act or it also deals with the situation where the districts may not be having with them the number of cases where a special court could be appointed for the said purpose. In such an eventuality, Sec. 14 itself confers the power with the State Government to notify any official for the purposes of dealing with the offences covered under the said Special Act, but the said power, which has been conferred herein with the State Government for nominating of a Court or an Officer for trying of an offence under the Act has had to be done with the concurrence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the State High Court, particularly the State for which the Officer has to be notified. Meaning thereby, whenever Sec. 14 has to be taken into consideration, it has to be taken into consideration in the light of the powers, which has been exercised by that particular State, which has been vested with the responsibility to create a special court to take cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1989. Meaning thereby, the nomination or assignment of jurisdiction of the special courts in other States cannot act as an exemplar, to be considered for the purposes of deciding the competence of the Court of our State as created under Sec. 14 of the Act of 1989. To take cognizance of the offence in the instant case as it has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the State Government while exercising its powers under Sec. 14 of the Act had issued a notification in concurrence with Hon'ble the Chief Justice being Notification No. 187/XVII-4/2017-243(l-d-)2002 Vh-lh-&I dtd. 17/4/2017, whereby, the Districts and Sessions Judge has been notified as to be a special court for the purposes of taking cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1989. Notification dtd. 17/4/2017 is quoted hereunder: