LexGANGULA ASHOK AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
GAl\/GULA ASHOK A"lD ANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
JANt.:AR Y 28, 20GO
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B.SHAH, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989-Sections 2( l)(d1; 14--Special Court-Specification of-Held: it is for
trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Session in each
C district is sought to be ;pecified as a Special Court-Off ences---Cognizance
of-Held, a Special Court can take cognizance of the offence only when the
case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure-A particular Court of Session, even after
being specified as a Special Court, continues to be essentially a Court of
Session and the interdict imposed by Section 193 of the Code of Criminal
D Procedure on all Courts of Session against taking cognizance of any offence
as a Court of origi11al jurisdictio11 would be applicable-He11ce, a complaint
or a charge sheet could not straightway be laid before the Special Court--{Jn-
less there is express provision to the co11trary in a11y other law, the provisions
of the Code will apply and interdict contained i11 Section 193 of the Code
E cannot be circumienteli-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sectio11s 2(g);
4(2 ); 5; 6 and 193
Direction by the High Court to the Special Court to frame charges after
committal of the case-Pennissibility of-Held, after committal of a case to
a Special Court, it is for that Court to decide regarding the action to be take11
F next after hearing both sides and no direction can be given to it by the High
Court at that stage-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 227.
The second appellant was working as Matron of a Girls' Hostel run
by the Social Welfare Department. One of the residents of the said Hostel
G lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the first appellant, husband
of the second appellant, outraged/tried to outrage her modesty and when
she complained to the second appellant about the same, the second appel-
lant tried to persuade her not to divulge it to any body else. The police after
investigation, filed a charge sheet directly before the Sessions Court which
was designated as the Special Court for trial of offences under Scheduled
H Caste_s and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, 1989 com-
468
GANGt;LAASHOK v. STArE
469
mitted within the territorial limits of the district concerned. Pursuant A
thereto, a charge was framed by the Special Judge against both the appel-
lants for the aforesaid offences respectively.
Thereafter, the appellants moved the High Court for quashing the
charge as well as the charge sheet on various reasons. Single Judge of the
High Court set aside the proceedings of the Special Court thereby holding B
that the procedure adopted by the investigating officer in filing the charge
sheet straightway to the Special Court was not in accordance with law. The
Charge sheet and the connected papers were directed to be returned to the
Police Officer concerned, who, in tum, was directed to present the same
before a Judicial Magistrate of first class "for the purpose of committal to C
the Special Court." The Single Judge further directed that "on such com-
mittal the Special Court shall frame appropriate charges in the light of
the observations in the order". Against the aforesaid order, the appellants
have preferred the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
D
HELD : 1.1. A Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is essentially a Court of Session
and it can take CO!,'Ilizance of the offence when the case is committed to it
by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In other words, a complaint or a charge sheet cannot E
straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act and the inter-
dict contained in Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would
stand in the way. [ 476-F]
1.2. Neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision
F
whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified Court of Session
(Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as Court
of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a
magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge sheet
or a compliant can straightway be filed before such Special Court for
offences under the Act. It can be discExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.