Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 601 (KAR)

STATE v. MAHALINGU

2000-08-30

H.N.NARAYAN

body2000
( 1 ) IN these 2 petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , the C. O. D. , Bangalore who are investigating Crime No. 84/2000 registered in Arakere Police Station in Mandya District have questioned the authority of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya assigning a bail application filed by the accused to the Additional Sessions Judge who is not the designated Court under the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are this :-The respondents herein filed an application for bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya who made over that application to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State appointed under Section 15 of the Act raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to hear the bail application of the accused against whom offences punishable both under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/st Act are alleged. The Additional Sessions Judge has not so far passed any order on the objection taken by the State or on the bail application in view of the filing of these petitions by the State. ( 3 ) RELIANCE is placed by both the counsel to the provisions of Section 14 of the SC/st Act of 1989 which reads as follows :-"14. Special Court :- 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. "section 15 provides for appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct such cases arising under the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 4 ) NOW the question for consideration is whether the Sessions Judges who exercise their general powers of bail under Section 438 and 439, Cr. P. C. have jurisdiction to dispose of an application for bail where offences punishable under the SC/st Act of 1989 along with other offences are alleged. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A. P. , (2000) 1 Supreme 378 : (2000 Cri LJ 819) had an occasion to discuss this very question. P. C. have jurisdiction to dispose of an application for bail where offences punishable under the SC/st Act of 1989 along with other offences are alleged. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A. P. , (2000) 1 Supreme 378 : (2000 Cri LJ 819) had an occasion to discuss this very question. While considering the powers of the Court of Sessions under Section 193 regarding cognizance of offences, at para 7, the Supreme Court has observed that :-"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.)At para 8 of the judgment, it is further stated as under :-"8. Section 14 of the Act say 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 clearly 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 (1) (d) ). At para 9, it is further held as follows :-"9. 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 (1) (d) ). At para 9, it is further held as follows :-"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". ( 6 ) THEREFORE the Apex Court has in fact distinguished trial from inquiry and the powers of the Sessions Court from that of Special Court and the Special Courts are established by the State Government only to ensure speedy trial of cases arising under the SC/st Act of 1989. In that event, I do not find any impediment for a Sessions Court which is not a Special Court not specially designated under the Act to dispose of a bail petition filed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the objections raised by the State have no merit. ( 7 ) ONE another contention canvassed for consideration by the learned Additional SPP for the State is that the bail petition filed in this case before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya is made over in the usual course to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. All petitions are filed before the Principal Judge only who in exercise of his powers assigns work to the Additional Judges by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All petitions are filed before the Principal Judge only who in exercise of his powers assigns work to the Additional Judges by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The observation made by the Apex Court that a Special Court is specially established only for trial of cases arising under the Act, is applicable even to such cases. I therefore find no impediment for an Additional Judge who is not a designated Court to dispose of such bail applications even where allegations of offences punishable under the SC/st Act are made. However, the Principal Sessions Judge wherever he is designated as a Special Court under the SC/st Act, 1989 shall hear all such petitions arising under the Code of Criminal Procedure by himself without assigning the said work to the Additional Judges who are not designated as Special Courts. ( 8 ) THE petitions filed by the State are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .