Allahabad High Court
Purshottam Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 14.02.2023 Delivered on 20.03.2023 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5056 of 2022 Appellant :- Purshottam Sharma And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Tarun Jha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Piyush Kumar Shukla, Rajendra Prasad, Ronak Chaturvedi Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''SC/ST Act') for quashing of the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in criminal complaint case no. 71 of 2018, Usha Pakhariya v. Purshottam Sharma & Ors., under Sections 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, whereby, the application filed by the appellants under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The proceedings of the case were initiated on the basis of the complaint and the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C, and after that the appellants were summoned. The appellants have moved an application for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the Trial court vide impugned order, by making observation that this provision is not applicable to this case. It was submitted that as no evidence has been recorded by the Trial court under Section 244 Cr.P.C., and thus, there was absolutely no evidence before the trial court to frame the charges against the appellants. The purpose of recording of the statements, under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., is merely for the consideration on point of summoning and those statements cannot be used for framing of charge. As there was no evidence against the appellants, thus, there was no material to frame the charges and thus the trial court committed error by rejecting the discharge application of appellants. It has further been argued that in the complaint case, filed under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the procedure prescribed under Chapter XIX-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.') has to be followed by the court of Special Judge, constituted under SC/ST Act. In the present matter, no such procedure has been followed and as stated-above, there was no material to frame the charges against the appellants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following laws:-
(i) Sunil Mehta And Anr. v. State of Gujarat And Anr., 2013 (81) ACC 295
(ii) Bhura Lal v. State (Rajasthan) passed in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 378 of 1994, decided on 30.04.1999
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 have opposed the appeal and argued that as per the provisions of SC/ST Act, the Special Court has to be a Court of Session and thus, it has to follow the procedure prescribed for a Session trial case. Referring to the case of Gangula Ashok And Anr. v. State of A.P., 2000(2) SCC 504, it has been submitted that it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the trial in such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code, which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "trial before a Court of Session" and thus, in the present matter, the court of Special Judge was not required to follow the procedure prescribed for warrant trial case. It is submitted that the provisions of law cannot be interpreted in a way so as to lay-down a new procedure. The provisions have to be interpreted in accordance with law. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the cases of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2014(3) SCC 92, Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., 2013(11) SCC 451 and Munnu Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine All 14344.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The Act No. 33 of 1989 (SC/ST Act) was enacted by the Legislature to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for [Special Courts and the Exclusive Special Courts] for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(1) (b)(d) of SC/ST Act states that "Exclusive Special Court" means the Exclusive Special Court established under sub-section (1) of section 14 exclusively to try the offences under this Act."
7. Section 14 of SC/ST Act reads as under:-
"[14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court.--(1) For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts:
Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act:
Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible.
(3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet."
8. It is not in dispute that the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jhansi is a Special Court, under Section 14 of SC/ST Act for the Sessions Division of Jhansi. In case of Gangula Ashok And Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
7. "So the first aspect to be considered is whether the Special Court is a Court of Session. Chapter II of the Code deals with "Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices". Section 6, which falls thereunder says that "there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely :
(i) Courts of session;'' (The other classes of criminal courts enumerated thereunder are not relevant in this case and hence omitted.)
8. Section 14 of the Act says that "for the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act". So it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Session in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in the Act it is dearly distinguishable from inquiry. The word "inquiry" is defined in Section 2(g) of the Code as. "every inquiry, other than trial, conducted under this Code by a magistrate or court". So the trial is distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. The Act contemplates only the trial to be conducted by the Special Court. The added reason for specifying a Court of Session as special Court is to ensure speed for such trial. "Special Court" is defined in the Act as "a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in Section 14", [vide S.2(l)(d)]
9. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. Why the Parliament provided that only a Court of session can be specified as a Special Court? Evidently the legislature wanted the Special Court to be Court of Session. Hence the particular Court of Session, even after being specified as a 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. The trial in such a court can be conducted only in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "Trial before a Court of Session".
9. From the above-stated pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that such specified Court to conduct trial for the offences under SC/ST Act and would continue to be essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude of its character or even powers as a Court of Session. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that the trial in such a court can be conducted only in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code, which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "Trial before a Court of Session". Thus, the Special Court under SC/ST Act has to conduct the trial like a Court of Session as prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Code and thus, it is apparent that the provisions of Sections 244 or 245 Cr.P.C. would not applicable in the trial conducted before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act. It is correct that the appellants have been summoned in a complaint case by following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code but after summoning of the accused, the trial has to be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Code, like a Session Court.
10. The case of Sunil Mehta And Anr. (supra), relied by learned counsel for the appellants, does not deal with the issue of trial for the offence under SC/ST Act. The said case law does not address the issue involved in the present case. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 244, 245 and 246 Cr.P.C. in relation to a complaint case.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the case of Bhura Lal (supra), decided by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, on 30.04.1999, wherein, inter alia it was observed that in the matters for which procedure has not been prescribed under SC/ST Act, the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply and the Special Court under Section 14 of SC/ST Act would try the offences by following the procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C. subject to provisions of SC/ST Act. However, above-stated case was decided in the year 1999. Thereafter, in the case of Gangula Ashok And Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that the procedure to be followed by Special Court specified under Section 14 of SC/ST Act, has to be only in the manner provided under Chapter XVIII of the Code. Thus, is is apparent that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants have no substance. So far the factual aspects of the matter are concerned, no contention was raised in this regard.
12. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, by which the application filed by the appellants under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.03.2023 Anand