ARUN BALWANTRAO MAHURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications arise out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 against the applicants under section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the said Act). After examining the complainant and two witnesses, the Magistrate issued process under section 3 (1) (10) of the said Act against the applicants. The applicants have filed separate applications challenging the order of issue Of process. One of the grounds on which the issue of process is challenged is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the matter or issue process since the jurisdiction to try the offence in question exclusively vests with the Special Court under the said Act.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicants, after relying upon two judgments of the Single Judge of this Court, submitted before me that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance in the matter and it was, therefore, incumbent on the Magistrate to have ordered the return of the complaint in question to the complainant under section 201 (a) of Cri. P. C. for presentation of the same to the Special Court. The said judgments are (Dhrupadabai wd/ o Ananda Labode v. State of Maharashtra and others) 1, reported in 1999 (Supp. ) bom. C. R. (N. B. ) 227 : 2000 (2) Mh. L. J. 748, and (Nandkishor s/'o Madarlal Choube and others v. State of Maharashtra and anothers) 2, reported in 2001 (Supp. ) Bom. C. R. (N. B. ) 546 : 2000 (2) Mh. L. J. 770. Learned Advocate for the applicants also urged before me that on merits, the applicants have sought quashing and setting aside of the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) In this respect, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3, after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Gangula Ashok and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh) 3, reported in 2000 (5) Bom. C. R. (S. C. ) 265 : A. I. R. 2000 S. C. 740, has urged that in view of the said ruling the law laid down in the judgments of two learned Single Judges of this Court referred to above, is not good law. He admitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the order of Magistrate ordering issue of process against the present applicants obviously cannot be sustained since the Magistrate shall have to follow the procedure provided for committal of the case to the Special Court since it is only the Sessions Court under the Act which can try the offence in question.