Madras High Court
Karl Marx vs Prem Ananth on 28 April, 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No. 193 of 2007 Karl Marx : Appellant Vs. 1.Prem Ananth Sub Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi. 2.Karuppasamy Police Constable, South Police Station, Thoothukudi. 3.Dharmalingam Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi. 4.Sivanandi Special Sub Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi. : Respondents PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Human Rights Judge, Thoothukudi, in HR.C.No.1 of 2000 by judgment dated 30.04.2002. !For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand ^For respondent : Mr.J.Sulthan Basha for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R1 Mr.P.Subbaraj for R2 to 4 :JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in Human Rights Case No.1 of 2000. The respondents are the accused in the case. He filed the said case by way of private complaint before the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Court under the Human Rights Act, Tuticorin. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the above private complaint. Finally, the Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.04.2002, acquitted the accused. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsels for the respondents.
3. Admittedly, the trial Court is the Sessions Court as per Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. The said Court can take cognizance of any offence, if only, the case has been committed to the said Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The power to take cognizance as a Court of original jurisdiction flows from Section 193 of Cr.P.C., which makes it mandatory that a Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of any offence, if only, the case has been committed by a Magistrate under the Code. In this case, the case was not committed to the learned Sessions Judge and instead, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had entertained the complaint and taken cognizance of the offences on the said private complaint. This, in my considered opinion, is illegal.
4. In Dr.S.Sourubarani and another vs. C.Selvi reported in 2005 (1) LW (Crl) 139, this Court has already held that the Human Rights Court, namely, the Sessions Court has got no original jurisdiction to take any cognizance of offences, unless the case has been committed. Accordingly, this Court has quashed the said private complaint, upon which, cognizance was taken. Applying the said principle to the facts of the instant case, the lower Court was not legally right in taking cognizance of the offences for want of committal of the case by a Court of competent Magistrate. In view of the same, I need not go into the other grounds raised in the appeal.
5. In the view of the above, I do not find any merit at all in this appeal and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
28.04.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes.
To The Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Human Rights Judge, Thoothukudi S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
RR CRL.A.(MD) NO.193 OF 2007 28.04.2015