Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 404 (AP)

Bandaru Venkata Swami v. State Of A. P.

2000-06-19

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY

body2000
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Guntur. The petitioners are the accused in the said Sessions Case. ( 2 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Edlapadu filed a charge sheet on 10-2-1997 against the petitioners herein under Sec. 3 (x) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 33 of 1989 (for short the Act ) before the Special Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Special Sessions Judge took the case on file under Sec. 3 (x) (i) of the Act against the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5. The learned Special Sessions Judge also took cognizance against A4 under Sec. 354 of I. P. C. and against A3 to A5 under Sec. 323 of I. P. C. The learned Special Sessions Judge issued Non-bailable warrants to produce the petitioners before the Court on 5-6-1997. ( 3 ) THE petitioners challenge the very procedure adopted by the learned Special Sessions Judge in taking the case on file as a Sessions Case. ( 4 ) SRI E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and bound to follow the same procedure as is applicable in every Sessions case. Mere fact that the Special Sessions Judge is conferred with the jurisdiction to inquire and try the offence arising under the said Act is no reason to give a total go bye to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking the case as a Sessions case on file. It is submitted that the complaint or the charge sheet cannot straightaway be laid before the Special Court under the said Act. This is the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the complaint or the charge sheet cannot straightaway be laid before the Special Court under the said Act. This is the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 5 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Referring Officer v. Shekar Nair, (1999) 3 ALT 533 : (1999 Cri LJ 4173) held that the Special Court cannot take cognizance without committal by the Magistrate in view of the bar created by Sec. 193 of Cr. P. C. and in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary in the Act. ( 6 ) IT is further held that the correct procedure to be adopted therefore, is that in the first instance, upon investigation, the Police Officer has to file a charge sheet in the Court of the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction and then the Magistrate on being satisfied that the offences alleged of can only be tried by the Special Court established under Section 14 of the Act, he has to commit the case to the Special Court and thereafter only the Special Court can take cognizance of the offence, on the analogy of the cases triable by the Court of Session. ( 7 ) HAVING laid down the law, this Court directed the charge sheets if pending to be returned for filing the same before the Court of the Magistrate of First Class for securing committal of the accused to the Court of Session as a Special Court. Directions were accordingly issued to the Police officers to present in the Court of competent Magistrate the charge sheets and the related documents, which however, already returned by the Special Court or after taking return from the Special Court. The committal proceedings in such cases were directed to be taken up on priority basis without avoidable delay by the concerned Magistrate. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A. P. , (2000) 1 ALT (Cri) 174 : (2000 Cri LJ 819) also held that a Special Court constituted under the said Act essentially is 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 the charge sheet cannot straightaway be laid before the Special Court under the Act. "in other words, a complaint or the charge sheet cannot straightaway be laid before the Special Court under the Act. "the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Referring Officer s case (1999 Cri LJ 4173) (supra) has taken the legal position correctly. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court however, observed that the directions by the learned single Judge in the said case directing the Special Court to frame the charge after the committal of the case are unsustainable in law. It is held that"it is for the Special Court to decide regarding the action to be taken next, after hearing both sides as provided in Section 227 of the Code. No direction can be given to the Special Court at this premature stage as to what the Court should adopt then. It is open to the appellants to raise all their contentions at that stage if they wish to make a plea for discharge. " ( 10 ) THIS observation of the Apex Court is sought to be torn out of the context by the learned counsel for the petitioners in contending that no direction could be given by this Court to return the charge sheet for filing the same before the Court of the concerned Magistrate of first Class for securing committal of the accused to the Court of Session constituted as Special Court. Learned counsel submits that no direction could be given to the police officers to present the charge sheets and related documents before the competent Magistrate for taking up the committal proceedings. In my considered opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Supreme Court merely observed that no direction could be given by the High Court compelling the Special Sessions Judge to frame charge against the accused. The Supreme Court observed, the action to be taken next after committal would be in accordance with Sec. 227 of the Code. The direction given by this Court that after committal of the case, the Special Court shall frame the charge was held to be unsustainable. That observation has nothing to do with the return of the charge sheet and filing the same before the competent Magistrate for taking up the committal proceedings. The direction given by this Court that after committal of the case, the Special Court shall frame the charge was held to be unsustainable. That observation has nothing to do with the return of the charge sheet and filing the same before the competent Magistrate for taking up the committal proceedings. ( 11 ) IN fact, the question once again came up for consideration before the same Division Bench in Referring Officer, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, 2000 (1) ALT (Cri) 388 : (2000 Cri LJ 3422 ). This Court after referring to Gangula Ashok s case (2000 Cri LJ 819) (supra) and the observations made by the Supreme Court and reiterated the principle laid down in Referring Officer s case (1999 Cri LJ 4173) (supra ). ( 12 ) THUS there is no legal impediment whatsoever for directing return of the charge sheets for filing the same before the concerned Magistrate of first class for securing committal of the accused to the Court of Session constituted as Special Court. The concerned Police Officer shall present in the Court of a competent jurisdiction the charge sheets and related documents after obtaining its return from the Special Court. The committal proceedings shall be taken up by the concerned Magistrate on priority basis. The committal proceedings shall go on in accordance with law. The proceedings on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge shall also go on in accordance with law after the committal. There shall be a direction accordingly directing the learned Special Sessions Judge, Guntur to return the charge sheets and other related documents to the concerned police officer for presenting the same before the learned Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate has to number the case as P. R. C. and if he finds that the case is triable by the Sessions Court then he has to pass the order under Sec. 193 of Cr. P. C. The further proceedings thereafter would depend upon the order to be passed by the learned Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction. Whatever progress is made so far in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997 is declared null and void. ( 13 ) THIS petition is accordingly ordered. ( 14 ) THIS Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy as amicus curiae. Order accordingly.