RAM AUTAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. This application has been filed by the complainant for a relief that the order dated 19-5-2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, be quashed and the case be transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Act.

(2.) BY the order dated 19-5-2003 the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ftc No. 24, Etawah, has refused application No. 12-Kha under Section 216 Crpc moved by the complainant/informant for framing a charge also under Sections 395 and 397 IPC on the ground that the Investigating Officer during investigation has found that the accused had deposited the so-called looted gun in the police station and that the allegations of robbing Rs. 3,500/- cash and jewellery appeared to be false and the Investigating Officer had only filed a charge- sheet under Sections 325, 323, 147, 504, 506 and 427 IPC.

(3.) HOWEVER, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that as one of the offences for which the accused has been charge- sheeted, namely, Section 325 IPC is mentioned in Clause (1) of the Schedule to the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the DAA Act) the trial before the present trial Court, i. e. Additional District and Sessions Judge/ftc 24, Etawah, was illegal. I do not find any substance in this argument because Section 6 of the DAA Act provides for jurisdiction of special Courts. It reads as follows : "6. Jurisdiction of Special Courts.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, a scheduled offence shall be triable only by a Special Court. (2) In trying any scheduled offences a Special Court may also try any offence other than such offence with which a scheduled offender may be charged at the same trial under any law for the time being in force. "