MANGLI PRASAD Vs. ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE IIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgement and order dated 16-8-94 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Orai District Jalaun and it has been submitted that though the learned Additional Session Judge at Orai has also been appointed as Special Judge within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but still he cannot invoke his power like a Magistrate to send that complaint petition u/S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the concerned police station for investigation. It has been contended that since he is the Additional Sessions Judge hence he cannot take cognizance of an offence unless committed before him by any Magistrate under the provisions of S. 209 of Cr. P.C. In this particular case, the learned court below passed the impugned order purporting to be in the exercise of powers u/S. 156(3) of Cr. P.C., which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, was bad in law as he had no power to do so. In this connection he has referred a decision reported (1994 UP Criminal Rulings, at page 297) Mansha Ram v. State, wherein it was held that cognizance taken by learned Sessions Judge of the offence u/S. 14 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in fact was bad as it was without jurisdiction.

(2.) Duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order.

(3.) In view of the provisions of S. 193 Cr. P.C., no Court of Sessions can take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction, unless the case has been committed to that Court by the learned Magistrate under Cr. P.C. for exercise of powers conferred on him. The Prevention of Atrocities Act is a special Act for protection of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There are otherSpecial Acts also such as the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 in which there is provision in S. 7 of the Act which authorises the learned Special Judge to take cognizance under said Act. Under the provisions of S. 14(d) TADA there is provision that the designated court may take cognizance of the offence. Similarly, though the accused may not be committed to that Court for trial but u/S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned Special Judge may take cognizance of the offence, if a complaint is filed before him but I do not find such provision under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987. It is true that the learned Court below has been appointed as a special Judge within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the Act but unless the accused is sent to him by the learned Magistrate, I am afraid he cannot take any cognizance of the offence u/S. 14 of the said Act and he also cannot act as a Magistrate in exercising his power or in taking the cognizance of the Act like a Magistrate or to send that complaint petition to the concerned police station u/S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. In this case there was recourse left to him by sending the0 complaint petition to the Magistrate having the jurisdiction with a direction to act according to law and thereafter when the case will be again sent back to him since he was to try the case as he was appointed a Judge within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the Act and to hold the trial thereafter, the learned Court below may proceed with the trial.