P VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused is the appellant. The appeal is preferred against the judgment in CC No.95 of 1992 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge, Guntur under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The charge is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned Special Sessions Judge finding the accused guilty for the offence falling under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Sub Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Nellore IV Town Police Station laid the charge-sheet against the accused in Crime No.71/9/Nellore IV Town Police Station, alleging that the accused who is the Deputy Executive Engineer had abused PW1 who belongs to Harizan community which amounts to committing an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The record reveals that the charge-sheet was initially filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Nellore, and the same was returned by the learned Magistrate with an endorsement "since the offence is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the charge-sheet may be filed in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Guntur. The said charge-sheet has been taken on file by the Special Sessions Judge, Guntur constituted under the Act. The said Court is a Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act. The Special Court having taken the charge-sheet on its file tried the matter and convicted the accused.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is two fold viz., (a) trial of the matter straight away by the Special Court is contrary to the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Code), and hence the Special Court has no jurisdiction and consequently, the judgment rendered in this case has to be set aside; and (b) the prosecution could not successfully prove the offence against the accused under the Act even on merits.