PAPPU SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There revisions are directed against the orders passed, by the Additional Sessions Judges taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party.

(2.) The main contention raised on behalf of the revisionsists is that cognizance of an offence can be taken only by a Magistrate under Section 190, Cr. P.C. and in view of the fact that the aforesaid Act does not provide for any different mode of taking of cognizance, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable. Cognizance can therefore, be taken only by a Magistrate and not by Additional Sessions Judge who may be specified as a special court in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act.

(3.) Section 14 reads as follows : -