MOLY AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOL Y AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
MARCH 23, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
I 989-Section I 4-Special Court-Nature of-Held, Special Court is a Court 
C of Session. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 193-Cognizance by Court 
of Session-Power of-Complaint filed directly before Special Court equivalent 
to Court of Session-Special Court taking cognizance of the complaint-Held, 
not permissible-Cognizance can be taken only on committal of the case by 
D the Magistrate-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989-Section 14. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 2(g)-lnquiry and Trial-
• 
Difference between-Held, both are distinct-Inquiry is a forerunner to the 
trial--Words and Phrases-Inquiry' and Trial. 
Constitution of India-Article 136-New plea-Not raised before lower 
courts-Entertaining of-Held, if new plea is a pure queslion of law, ii can 
be entertained. 
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 3(1)(iii), 
3(l)(v) and 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the trial court as well as the High 
Court. 
Preferring appeal before the Court, appellant contended that the 
Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being a Court of Session, could not have 
suo moto entertained and registered the complaint as a sessions case. The 
State opposed the case on the ground, inter alia, that the above plea was 
not taken before the lower courts and should not be allowed to be raised 
~ · 
for the first time before the Court. 
346 
MOL Y v. STA TE OF KERA LA 
347 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is for trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that a particular 
Court of Session in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court: 
A 
Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other Court 
can conduct the trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled B 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Evidently the legislature wanted the 
Special Court to be a Court of Session. Hence the particular Court of 
Session, even after being specified as Special Court, would continue to be 
essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would 
not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of Session. 
C 
[350-B, D-E[ 
2. Subject to the provisions in other enactments all offences under 
other laws shall also be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise 
dealt with under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This 
means that if another enactment contains any provision which is contrary D 
to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such other provision 
would apply in place of the particular provision of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. If there is no such contrary provision in other laws, then 
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to the matters 
covered thereby. [351-D-E[ 
A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, [1984[ 2 SCC 500, referred 
to. 
3.1. Trial is distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a 
forerunner to the trial. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act contemplates only the trial to be conducted 
by Special Court. [350-C] 
E 
F 
3.2. Neither in the Code of Criminal Procedure nor in the Scheduled 
C.astes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is there any 
provision whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified Court of G 
Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offences under the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as 
a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by 
a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think the charge sheet or 
a complaint straightaway be filed before such Special Court for offences 
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 3 S.C.R. 
A Atrocities) Act. 1351-BI 
3.3. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be brought 
in aid for supporting the view that the Court of Session specified under 
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 
obviate the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code of Criminal 
B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.