IN REFERENCE Vs. JITENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur has referred the matter with a view to be considered in suo motu revision and be directed accordingly.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a Criminal Case No.2145/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jitendra) arising out of FIR 198/2012 Police Station Nepanagar, Distt. Burhanpur u/s 354, 342, 377 of I.P.C was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 16.07.2011 committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 32/2011. The then learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur made over the case to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur. The trial commenced in that Court and the case was fixed for final arguments on 01.02.2012 and then for judgment on 06.02.2012. On the date of judgment i.e. 06.02.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the case is triable by Special Court (Designated) established under "Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005" and returned back the case to the Sessions Judge for further proceeding observing that the learned Sessions Judge, being the designated court, had jurisdiction to try the offences pertaining to children as described in Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005".

(3.) The Sessions Judge remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class with a direction that the case be committed as per notification of the government dated 17.07.2001 (by which Sessions Court has been designated as "Children's Court" by the State Government with the consent of High Court. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 21.02.2012 again committed the case to Sessions Court and the case was registered as Special Case No.14/2012. The detailed fact of the case was brought to the knowledge of Sessions Judge (Designated Court) on 25.02.2012 at the stage of arguments for framing of charge. The learned Sessions Judge (designated), Burhanpur felt that trial was conducted by First Additional Sessions Judge who has the same jurisdiction as that of Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge could also be a designated court under "Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and since both Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, de novo trial will give rise to various complications, adversely affecting the merits of the case. At this stage, the matter has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge to treat this as a suo motu revision and guide.