RAMESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. KASINATH JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have challenged the legality of the order dated 9-2-2000 passed by the special Judge, Bhadrak taking cognizance of the offence committed under Sections 294 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) Shri D.P. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has challenged the impugned order on the following two grounds : (a) The officer who has investigated into the case has not been empowered to investigate it under the statute. (b) The Special Court lacks jurisdiction to take cognisance in respect of an offence punishable under section 3 of the Act.

(3.) So far as the second point is concerned the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 18 OCR 364 : (2000 Cri LJ 819 (SC)), Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment the Apex Court has held that a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognisance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P.C. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act. This Court has followed the said decision in some other cases and order taking cognizance passed by the Special Court has been quashed. Considering the said submission and the decision rendered by the Apex Court, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 3 of the Act.