Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Dipak Misra, J.

Perceiving divergent and contradictory views as regards the effect and impact of not committing an accused in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') in cases where charge-sheet is filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity `the Act') and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act, a two-Judge Bench thought it apposite to refer the matter to a larger Bench and on the basis of the said reference, the matter has been placed before us. At this juncture, it is requisite to clarify that the real conflict or discord is manifest in Moly and Another v. State of Kerala1 and Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala2 on one hand wherein it has been held that the conviction by the Special Court is not sustainable if it has suo motu entertained and taken cognizance of the complaint directly without the case being committed to it and, therefore, there should be retrial or total setting aside of the conviction, as the case may be, and the other in State of M. P. v. Bhooraji & Ors.3 wherein, taking aid of Section 465 (1) of the Code, it has been opined that when a trial has been conducted by the court of competent jurisdiction and a conviction has been recorded on proper appreciation of evidence, the same cannot be erased or effaced merely on the ground that there had been no committal proceeding and cognizance was taken by the Special Court inasmuch as the same does not give rise to failure of justice.

3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the appellants along with others preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 1996 before the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Apart from raising various contentions on merits, it was pressed that the entire trial was vitiated as it had commenced and concluded without committal of the case to the Court of Session as provided under Section 193 of the Code. Heavy reliance was placed on Gangula Ashok and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 and Moly and Another (supra) and Vidyadharan (supra) but the Division Bench placed reliance on Bhooraji (supra) wherein Gangula Ashok (supra) was distinguished keeping in view the stage of the case and regard being had to the provision contained in Section 465 of the Code and treated the same to be a binding precedent in view of the special Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another5 and repelled the contention accordingly. Thereafter, as the impugned judgment would reveal, the Bench proceeded to deal with the matter on merits and eventually sustained the conviction and affirmed the sentence as has been indicated hereinbefore.

4 AIR 2000 SC 740 5 2003 (1) MPJR 158

4. We have heard Mr. Fakhrudin, learned senior counsel and Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan for the appellants in both the appeals and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent-

State.

5. At the very outset, we shall advert to the jurisdiction or authority of the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence under the Act regardless of the interdict stipulated in Section 193 of the Code. Section 193 of the Code reads as follows:

8. In Vidyadharan (supra), the Court delved into the said issue and eventually proceeded to state as follows:
"23. Hence, we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straight away be laid down before the Special Court under the Act. We are reiterating the view taken by this Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 504 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 488] in the above terms with which we are in respectful agreement. The Sessions Court in the case at hand, undisputedly, has acted as one of original jurisdiction, and the requirements of Section 193 of the Code were not met."