LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus GITA RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. GITA RAM SEPTEMBER 8, 2000 B .._ [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] '" Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989: Sections 14 & 2(1)(d)---Sessions Court designated as Special Court ~ for trial of offences under the Act---Such specified Special Court n~t denuded ·r .... c of its character and powers as a Sessions Court-Competent to try offences under the Indian Penal Code-Indian Penal Code, 1860. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 465-Technical objection as to jurisdiction-not taken at earliest stage-Cannot be allowed to be D taken after completion of trial. In this appeal, the question arising for consideration was whether a Sessions Court designated as a 'Special Court' as provided under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 would cease to be a Sessions Court and lost its jurisdiction to try offences E under the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case the conviction and sentence awarded by such specified : Sessions Court for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the Special Court could not have - F taken cognizance of the offence under section 376 IPC separately and commitment of the case to such a Court by the Magistrate was illegal. The High Court further directed a retrial by a competent court. Setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the appeal back to the High Court for disposal on merits, this Court. G HELD : 1. A Court of Session specified as a Special Court for trial of .. offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 continues to have jurisdiction to try offences under the Indian Penal Code and the order of committal to such Court by the Magistrate H was legally valid. [198-D] 196 r STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. GITA RAM [THOMAS, J.] 197 1.1. It was intended by the legislature that only a Court of Session and A no other court be specified as a Special Court for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Hence such specified 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 powers as a Court of Session. (198-G) Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 504, relied on. B 2. If any party to a criminal proceeding is aggrieved on any technical ground, he must raise the objection at the earliest stage; he cannot be heard C on that aspect after the whole trial is over. [199-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.99 of the Himachal Pradesh D High Court in Cr!. A. No. 73of1999. Anil Nag for the Appellant. D.K. Garg, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ms. Renu George for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted. E By the impugned judgment a learned single Judge of the High Court ordered a redo of the whole laborious exercise once completed in full measure F at great cost of time and energy, solely on a technical ground. Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'the Act'). A Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court who was specified as a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. A charge was framed by the said Sessions Court against the respondent only for the offence under Section 376 IPC. After trial the said Sessions Judge convicted the respondent G for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment H 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A for seven years. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court challenging,. the conviction and sentence. A learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the said conviction and sentence on one technical ground i.e. the trial Judge had no jurisdiction as he was only the Special Court specified under the Act. The case was committed to that court and resultantly that court has no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the IPC separately, B according to the High Court. The operative portion of the High Court judgment reads thus: c "Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence is set
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.