HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 22-1 l-1999whereby the cognizance was taken against the accused person. Learned coun sel for the revisionists contends that cog nizance has been taken by the Incharge Special Judge while only Special Judge appointed by the State Government or High Court was authorised to take cog nizance, ft is contended that Special Courts have been constituted under Sec tion 5 of the U. R Dacoity Affected Areas Act 1983 and Special Judge have been appointed and crush-section 2 of Section 5 to preside over the Special Court only Special Judge may take cognizance of any schedule offence. It is further contended that a Judge who has not been appointed as incharge Special Judge cannot take cog nizance. It is a fact that the case is to be tried under Dacoity Affected Areas Act by Special Judge nominated for that pur poses. However, it cannot be held that if Incharge Sessions Judge passed certain order it was illegality or it was beyond his jurisdiction because when there is no provisions in the Act for any other officer to be appointed as Special Judge, it must have been specifically provided in the Act the no order shall be passed by any other officer who is not appointed as Special Judge. It must be considered that there may be so many occasions when the Spe cial Judge is not on duty and provisions must have been made locally to carry on certain business, in respect of the cases covered by the above act. Therefore, even if, due to some local arrangement some order has been passed by the Incharge Special Judge, it cannot be held that it was illegal.

(2.) CONSIDERING the facts, there is no force in the revision, it is hereby rejected. Revision dismissed. .