MOHAMMAD JUNED Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 13/2013. relegating the trial for adjudication by the Special Judge notified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''Prevention of Atrocities Act '').

(2.) In the present case an offence was registered at crime No. 96/2013 by Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam under Sections 363,366,342,506 -B and 376 -D of IPC and also under Sections 5(g), 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ''POCSO Act '') and Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, wherein challan was filed in the Court of Sessions notified as ''Children 's Court ''.

(3.) Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cognizance had taken by the Court of Sessions, notified under POCSO Act, which is transferred by Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide order dated 15.05.2013 to the Special Judge notified under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is his grievance that having involved in the offence under the POCSO Act and the Prevention of Atrocities Act both along with offences of IPC, challan may be filed before the Court of Sessions notified to hear the cases under POCSO Act, however, assignment of the case for trial to the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities is illegal. It is submitted that before Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities challan is not required to file directly and the said Court shall try the cases received after committal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the present case, challan has been filed directly before the court of Sessions, however, it shall affect the trial prejudicing the accused. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon 'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok & another V/s State of A.P., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri.) 488. It is further submitted that the prevention of Atrocities Act is of year 1989, while the POCSO Act is of 2012 and both are special enactments, the POCSO Act being later enactment shall prevail applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Thus, by passing the order impugned, transfer of the session trial to the Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities is against the law laid down by the Apex Court, however, the order impugned may be set aside and the case may be directed to be decided by the Court of Sessions notified under the POCSO Act.