STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BHOORAJI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 24-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
v. 
BHOORAJI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Sections 193, 465, 461 and 462-Sessions Trial-Procedural 
C irregularity-Whether a ground for de novo trial-Accused charged for 
offences inter alia under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of Atrocities) Act-Cognizance by Court of Session, a specified court established 
under the Act, without the case being committed by Magistrate-Conviction 
and sentence-Appeal by accused before High Court consequent upon a 
D decision of Supreme Court-Plea raised by accused that without there being 
a committal order, trial was vitiated-High Court quashing the entire trial 
and directing de novo trial-Validity of-Held, unless procedural irregularity 
in. conduct of criminal trial has occasioned 'Jailure of justice'', It cannot be 
' quashed-Any omission or illegality in the procedure not affecting the core of 
the case is not a ground for ordering de novo trial-Since the accused has 
E failed to show that the procedural irregularity has occasioned 'Jailure of 
justice", High Court was not justified in quashing the trial and ordering de 
novo trial-Moreover, the law which held the field at the relevant time in the 
State was governed by a Full Bench decision of the High Court-Matter 
remitted to High Court for disposal on merits-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
F 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) _Act, 1989. 
Section 465-"Court of competent Jurisdiction" :-Determination of-
Held, bar against taking cognizance of certain offence does not make a duly 
constituted court incompetent for all purposes-specified court under the SCI 
ST Act would not cease to be a court of competent Jurisdiction : merely 
G because of certain procedural lapse-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression "Court of Competent Jurisdiction" :-Meaning of-Jn the 
H 
128 
STATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. BHOORAJI 
129 
context of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3. 
A 
Respondent-accused were charge-sheeted for various offences including 
offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2) of the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
(SC/ST) Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, a specified court under Section 
14 of the Act, after a protracted trial for several years, convicted and sentenced B 
the accused. The accused filed appeal before the High Court. During the 
pendency of the appeal this Court in Gangula Ashok's case held that committal 
proceedings were necessary for specified Court under the SC/ST Act to take 
congnizance of the offences to be tried. Initially the legal position which held 
the field in the State was the same on account of the judgment of the Division C 
Bench of the High Court in Meerabhai 's case. But the said legal position was 
subsequently overruled by Full Bench of the High Court in Anand Swarup's 
case by holding that Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
does not apply to proceedings under the SC/ST Act and 5ommittal orders 
were not required. Thus, in view of the judgment of this Court in Gangula 
Ashok's case the legal position adopted by Division Bench of the High Court D 
in Meerabhai's case got revived and the Full Bench decision in Anand Swarup 's 
case got eclipsed. Consequently, respondents filed applications before the High 
Court for quashing the trial proceedings on the ground that the trial held 
against them by the specified Court of Session without the case being 
committed by a Magistrate was without any Jurisdiction. Division Bench of E 
the High Court upholding the said contention quashed the entire trial and 
ordered retrial of the case. Hence the present appeal by the State. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, 
the Court 
HELD : 1. The trial held by the Court of Session reaching the judgment F 
impugned before the High Court in appeal was c_onducted by a Court of 
competent Jurisdiction and the same cannot be erased merely on account of 
a procedural lapse, that is cognizance taken by specified Court without there 
being any committal order, particularly when the same happened at a time 
when the law which held the field in the State wa~ governed by the decision G 
of the Full Bench of the High Court in *Anand Swarup's case. The High Court 
should have dealt with the appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.