BHURA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Lakha Ram and Ghuda Ram, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint against the petitioners Bhura Ram, Aaidan, Asha Ram and Chaina Ram alleging commission of offences under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (ix) (x) of the Sched-uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity and convenience as the SC/ST Act) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi. The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called as the Code) directed the Station House Officer, Phalodi to investigate and report the result of investigation to the learned Magistrate. On this, on 25-9-92 a FIR No. 144/92 was registered at the Police Station, Phalodi and after investigation, a final report was made to the learned Magistrate (FR No. 40/92). The petitioners opposed the report by lodging a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties accepted the final report. Aggrieved by this order the respondents complainants filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 6/94 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi. On 13-4-94, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order which accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition, and directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and to proceed in accordance with law.

(2.) The aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court by the petitioners. In this case an objection was raised that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. It was also contended in the petition that on constitution of Special Courts, the Special Courts alone had jurisdiction to deal with the cases under the Act and no other Court could take cognizance of any offence under the Act or could deal with any such cases.

(3.) On 14-8-96 a learned single Judge, hearing the cases, directed the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench disagreeing with the view taken by another single Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri LR (Raj) 613 on the following points :-