MEERA BAI Vs. BHUJBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by Brother Shacheendra Dwivedi, J., relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called "the Act").

(2.) Facts of the case are not of much significance. However, briefly narrated facts are that a complaint was filed under Ss. 323 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 3(iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Special Judge (Sessions Judge, Guna). The question that arose before the learned Sessions Judge was as to whether he had jurisdiction to take cognizance or not. By its order dated 14-3-1992, the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) held that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in view of S. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the complaint was dismissed. Against this order, an appeal was preferred under S. 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code'). Thus, the learned single Judge was faced with the problem as to whether the Sessions Court, which was designated as Special Court under the said Act, was empowered to try the offence under the Act without its committal by the Court of Magistrate under S. 193 of the Code. There is a single Judge decision of this Court in Sukhlal Jatav v. State of M.P. and others (Cri. Revision No. 149/92, dated 14-7-1993) decided by Brother K.M. Pandey, J. in which a view was taken that Special Court under S. 14 of the Act becomes a Court of original jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Code, i.e. Criminal Procedure Code; and it could take cognizance of the offences under the said Act for the trial as provided in the Act. Section 193 of the Code did not apply to the said Act. Special Court was not required to wait till the case was committed to it. Brother Dwivedi, J., in his detailed order of reference found himself unable to contribute to the view taken by Brother Pandey, J., hence this reference was made.

(3.) We have heard at great length the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A. K. Shrivastava, Advocate. Shri P. L. Dubey, Advocate, also intervened to support the contention of the applicant and the view taken by Brother Pandey, J. on the other hand, Shri K. K. Lahoti, Advocate supported the contrary view. We have also heard Shri K. B. Chaturvedi, Government Advocate, who assisted us on our request, as the question was of great importance.