IQBAL BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. K. Mathur, J. These revisions are directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the provisions 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 revisionists 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. Section 14 reads as follows: "14. Special Court.-Pot the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. "

(3.) THIS provision or any other provision does not provide for taking of cognizance by the Special Judges.