JABBAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for grant of bail moved under section 439 Cr. P.C. A similar application has been rejected by AddI. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by his order dated August 24, 1987, without entering into the merits of the case holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The reasoning assigned by him in the order is that this case arises from Tehsil Hindaun which area falls within the jurisdiction of Dacoits Affected Area and since Special Courts for such areas have been created under section 6 of the Rajasthan Dacoits Affected Areas Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) hence he has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge is not a detailed order bat it appears that he took this view as the offence under section 307 I.P.C. has been included to the Schedule appended to the Act and offences enumerated in the Schedule are defined as Scheduled offences in the Act. He submits that the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act are not happily worded and particularly the word including has created a confusion. It is submitted that intention of the Legislature can never be to oust the jurisdiction of the regular courts in respect of the cases not connected with offence of dacoity. He refers to the preamble or the Act and submits that the law has been enacted for effectively dealing with the persons whose acts arise out or, or form part of, or are connected with the offence of dacoity. He submits that the Special Courts have been given the jurisdiction to deal with other offences also provided, they are connected or arise out of or form part of an act of dacoity else different trials in different courts would have to be launched and it would be against the spirit of even Constitution of India. Mr. Khan appearing on behalf of the State very frankly admitted that the intention of the Legislature was never to oust the Jurisdiction of the regular courts in respect of cases unconnected with the dacoity. He submits that Special Courts have been created for the Dacoity Affected Areas and the purpose is to eradicate the menace of dacoity and to effectively deal with the cases of dacoity and other offences which are also committed in relation with the offence of dacoity. He also pointed out that inadvertently the word including has crept in the definition of Scheduled offences given in Section 2(c) of the Act and the gazette notification published in the Hindi language itself carries a different meaning than the one: given In English version. He has further submitted that the State Government is aware of the ambiguity created and a suitable amendment in the statute has been suggested so that the underlying object in bringing the Act may be effectively brought forward and he stated that the State Government has in principle agreed to bring amendment which will likely be brought in be next session of the assembly. Mr. Bin Singh, learned counsel for the complainant concedes to the legal position.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the provisions of law. Before dealing with the provisions it would be worthwhile to reproduce section 2(c) and section 2(d) of the Act which read as under: Section 2(c) Scheduled offence in relation to a dacoity affected area, means an offence specified in the schedule appended to the Act, including an offence forming part of, arising out of, or connected with the commission of dacoityT1. Section 2(d) T1TScheduled offenderTT, in relation to a dacoity-affected area, means a person who commits or has committed or is a person accused of the commission of any scheduled offence. It would also be proper to reproduce the definition given in the Act which has been passed in Hindi: AAfdth MdSrh izHkkfor {ks=k esa vuqiwfpr vijk!kb is bi vf/kfu;e is iayXu vuqiwfp esa fofufnZV dksbZ vijklk fliesa fdlh MdSrh dk uke :i ;k mids Mkys tkus is mn?kr vFkok ialDr dksbZ vijklk ifEefyr gS] vfFlkizsr gS( fdlh MdSrh izllkkfor {ks+=k ds iEcU/k esa vuqiwfpr vijk!kb is ,sik O;fDr vfl-lkizsr gS tks dksbZ 11kb vuqlwfpr vijklk djrk gS ;k dj pqdk gS ;k tks fdih 11kb vuqiwIpr vijklk ds fd;s tkus dk vfl-lk;qDr dksbZ O;fDr gS AAA A paraphrasing of section 2(c) in Hindi and English obviously carries a different meaning and the one given in Hindi is nearer to the intention of the Legislature as given in preamble of the Act. Special Courts have been created to effectively deal with all the situations created in the Dacoity Affected Areas in relation to commission of dacoities and the offences connected therewith. The Courts created under the Act are Special Courts having special powers conferred by the Act and the scheduled offences have been incorporated into the Act so that there may not be either different trials in different forum or different procedure adopted for those offences which are directly connected with the offence of dacoity and those which either arise out of, or are connected with, or form the part of dacoity. If a strict meaning to the word including is given, then is would at times have absurd results, for example section 325 I.P.C. is one of the offences included in the Schedule is therefore, a scheduled offence. If independently without being connected with any offence of dacoity a person accused of offence under section 325 I.P.C is brought before the Special Court and he moves an application for bail his application shall have to be dealt with under section 5 of the Act and if so, then it would be directly in contravention to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus if the offences, mentioned in the Schedule which are unconnected with offences relating to dacoity, are committed by certain persons and if the narrow interpretation is given and are dealt with under the Act while deciding the bail applications then necessary coronary is that in such cases due considerations will have, to be given to the provisions of section 5 of the Act which reads as follows: Section 5 Regulation of grant of bail Not withstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused or convicted of a scheduled offence shall, if in a custody be released on bail or on his own bond unless