DHANAJI GANU DHUNDALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present revision application filed by the original complainant there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 13.10.2006, made by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon acquitting non-applicant Nos.2 to 4 - accused for the charge that was framed under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) IN support of the revision application, learned Counsel for the applicant made the following submissions. (1) The trial Judge being Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to try the said special case since he was not notified a special Judge under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act contemplates specific notification. (2) The said Judge being Ad hoc Judge was obviously thus not a regular Judge and was therefore disqualified from trying the said special case. (3) Appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial Judge is perverse and has drawn wrong conclusion by not properly marshalling the evidence and by not properly applying the law. (4) Xerox copy of the caste certificate of the complainant was collected during the investigation and filed along with chargesheet. But then same could not be exhibited and was marked Article-A by the concerned Officer as the original was not collected by the Investigating Officer and the complainant having no access to the original, the matter should be remitted to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

(3.) AD hoc appointment of the learned Judge makes no difference since the learned Judge was Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the scheme of the Central Government additional word 'Ad hoc' was used, which makes no difference. Hence, the second submission is also rejected.