JAWAHARSINH RAMBAHADURSINH BHADORIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of these appeals, appellants original accused nos. 1 & 2 have challenged the judgment and order dated 22/6/1994, by which, Special Judge (Court no. 12), Ahmedabad in Atrocity Criminal Case no. 6/1994 has convicted the appellants under section 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 353, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default, simple imprisonment for seven days, simple imprisonment for ten days and fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default, simple imprisonment for three days, simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default, simple imprisonment for five days, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default, simple imprisonment for ten days imposed upon them respectively. It is further ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts arising out from the record of the case are as under:

(3.) MR . S.A.Khan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case which is tried by Special Judge, from its inception is barred by law and against the settled principle of law and provisions of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 14 of the Atrocity Act. He has submitted that learned Special Judge ought not to have considered the complaint lodged by the complainant directly in the Court of Special Judge and ought not to have issued order under section 156(3) in absence of any special provisions under the Atrocity Act. He has further submitted that under section 193 of Code, the Sessions Court can not take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction, unless, the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate under this Code. In the present case, the case was not committed by any Magistrate, therefore, learned Special Judge ought not to have taken any cognizance of the case and proceeded with the case. On merits also, he has assailed the judgment of the Trial Court that the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses are contradictory in nature. Therefore, also the say of the complainant about the incident creates doubts and therefore, benefits should be given to the appellant.