M.A. KUTTAPPAN versus E. KRLSHNAN NAYANAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 26-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M.A. KUTTAPPAN 
v. 
E. KRlSHNAN NAY ANAR AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] . 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
1989; Section 3(J)(x)/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482: 
. Complaint in the Court of Special Judge-DerogatOJ)' remarks against 
a Scheduled Caste ML.A. allegedly made by the Chief Minister in full view 
of public-Held: offence committed under the provisions of the Act-issuance 
of process to accused summoning him to stand trial-Challenge to-:-Order 
quashed by High Court holding that no offence was made out-On appeal; 
D Held: Since Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint directly, 
he erred in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process without 
committal of the case for trial by a competent Magistrate-Hence, order set 
aside-However, appellant could file a complaint bP-fore a competent 
Magistrate-The Magistrate shall consider the matter in accordance with law 
uninfluenced by the earlier observations of the Special Court/High Court/ 
E Supreme Court-Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; Section 7(J)(d). 
Appellant - an MLA, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint 
in the Court of Special Judge alleging that Respondent No.1, the then Chief 
Minister of the State of Kerala, had made derogatory remarks against him 
F in front of the public, thereby encouraged the audience to practise 
untouchability. The Special Judge came to the finding that the offence under 
relevant provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of Atrocities) Act and the protection of Civil Rights Act was made out He 
took cognizance of the offence and issued process summoning the accused to 
stand trial. The order was challenged by Respondent No.1. High Court 
G quashed the order holding that no offence was made out under either of the 
two Acts. Hence, the present appeal. 
H 
It was contended by Respondent No.1 that in the absence of an order 
of committal made by a competent Magistrate committing the accused to 
stand trial before the Session Court, the Court/Special Judge, who exercise 
668 
-
-
r' 
-
:,· 
M.A. KUTTAPPAN v. E. KRISHNANNAYANAR 
669 
powers of a Sessions Court as per provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code A 
had no jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the 
complaint directly and to issue process after taking cognizance without the B 
case being committed to it by a competent Magistr:-tP.. The question is no 
longer res integra. The Special Judge erred in entertaining a complaint filed 
before it and in issuing process after taking cognizance without the case being 
committed to it for trial by a competent Magistrate. Though the High Court 
has quashed the proceeding on a different ground altogether, the impugned C 
order of the Special Judge deserves to be set aside so far as it related to its 
taking cognizance of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and issuing process on the basis of the 
complaint directly made before it by the complainant, ordered accordingly. 
[674-B-D) 
Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 504 
and Vidyadharan v. State of Kera/a, JT (2003) 9 SC 89, relied on. 
D 
2. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Section 
7(l)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is not attracted in the facts and 
circumstances of the case. Assuming, respondent No.1 uttered the words E 
imputed to him, by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that by 
uttering those words he had either insulted or attempted to insult the appellant 
on the ground ofuntouchability. There was no justification for the submission 
that the words allegedly uttered by respondent No.I encouraged his audience 
to practise untouchability or that respondent No.I practised untouchability. 
However, it will be open to the appellant, if so advised, to file a complaint F 
before a competent Magistrate, who shall proceed to consider the matter in 
accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made either by the 
Special judge or by the High Court or by this Court. 
[674-G, E, F, H; 675-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. G 
450 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1997 of the Kerala High 
Court in Cr!. M.C No. 2192 of 1996. 
H 
670 
SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.