STATE Vs. LATOORI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three references made by Sri P.P. Mathur, the then Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Etah, by his submission, dated July 3, 1984.

(2.) THE brief facts of the matter are that three cases, namely S.T. No. 281 of 1981 State v. Latoori Singh, S.T. No. 490 of 1981 State v. Shyam Singh, S.T. No. 460 of 1982 State v. Nanhey were pending disposal in the district of Etah. The prosecution story was that Satish Chandra was in the night between 17th and 18th November, 1980, at about 11.30 p.m., abducted from his grove situate in village Deoraiya, police station Patiyali, district Etab, by the seven accused of these three cases, who were also accompanied by one Mahabir and 6 and 7 others. In addition to committing the offence abductions under Section 364, IPC, these persons also committed the offence of dacoity, punishable under Section 395 IPC. Some of these accused are also said to have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 -B, IPC, in respect of the offence under Sections 364 and 395, IPO. In all, thus, there were 12 accused, out of whom one, namely, Raja Ram died. These 12 persons in the night between 19th and 20th November, 1980 at about 9.00 p.ra committed the murder of Satisb Chandra in the field of Het Singh in village Nagla Beni, police station Aliganj, district Etab, and burled the body in the field and thus offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and 201, IPC, were also committed. The deadbody was ultimately recovered on 13 -3 -1981 at the instance of one Ram Prakash. Charge sheets in these Sessions Trials were submitted on 8 -6 -81, 1 -10 -81 mi 1 -10 -81 and charges were framed. The cases were pending before one of the Sessions Judge at Etah when U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1983) came into operation and received the assent of the President. Then the Sessions Judge transferred these cases in view of the proviso to Section 7(1) of the Act on 6 -3 -84 to the court of the Special Judge (Anti -Dacoity) Etah, which were received there on 24 -3 -84.

(3.) IN the first sentence of this proviso the word under this Act "qualify the term" Special Court. It is because the Special Courts have been brought into being under Section 5 of the U.P. Act No. 31 of 1983. The proviso, therefore, clearly mentions that if there is a case already pending in the district which is triable by a Special Court and the case is pending since before the commencement of the Act and it is pending in a dacoity affected area, it has to stand transferred to the Special Court having jurisdiction and it has got to be dealt with and disposed of by that Court in accordance with the provisions of that Act. There is no ambiguity in this provision of law. The reference, therefore, is of no substance. The transfer of all the three cases was justified and in accordance with law.