LAWS(GJH)-1992-12-17

BABALDAS BECHARBHAI CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 28, 1992
BABALDAS BECHARBHAI CHAVDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner who is the original complainant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 163 and 164 of 1992 releasing the respondents-accused on bail.

(2.) Shri Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in both these applications has vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge releasing the respondents-accused on bail should be quashed and set aside by this Court, because he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said applications of the accused. He submitted that except the learned Sessions Judge no other Judge could hear and decide the bail application of the accused who are charged with the offence under the 'Atrocities Act'. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction and it should be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission he has read Sec. 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) and submitted that only a Court of Session is a Special Court which can try the offence under the Act. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge alone has got jurisdiction. He also read the Notification dated 30-1-1990 issued by the State Government to the extent. As per the said Notification the Court of Sessions is a Special Court in Sessions Division, Mehsana to try the case under the Act.

(3.) Mr. M. R. Raval, learned A. P. P. appearing for the State, in both these applications on advance copy of the petitioner served upon him by the petitioner, has brought to my notice Sec. 2(12)(d) of the Act which defines Special Court, i.e., the Court of Session specified as Special Court under Sec. 14. He also brought to my notice provisions of Sec. 9(1), (2), (3) of Cr. P. C. which are relevant for our purpose to decide the point in question raised by Shri Patel which are as under :