Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 685 (CAL)

Umapada Mitra v. State of West Bengal

2001-10-18

Debiprasad Sengupta

body2001
JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J.: The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura in Sessions Case No.6 (II) of 1996. On completion of investigation of Chatna P.S. case No.3 of 1994, police submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioners before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate under sections 354/376/498/506/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, who transferred the case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. The learned trial Judge framed charges against the petitioner and fixed dates for evidence. 2. On the date so fixed by the learned trial Judge, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution stating that the victim ladies belonged to Scheduled Caste community and as such a separate charge under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as " the said Act"), was required to be framed against the accused persons. It was prayed that since the case was triable by the Special Court according to the provision of section 14 of the said Act, a report should be called for from the investigating officer to ascertain whether the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste community or not. The learned trial Judge thereafter on being satisfied that the victims belonged to S. C. community and since he had no jurisdiction to try the offence, held that the case was to be tried by the learned Special Judge in view of the provision of section 14 of the Act. Accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura forwarded the case-record to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura, designated as Special Court for the trial of the case under the provisions of the said Act. It is against such order the petitioner has come up before this court in revision. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the learned Judge was justified in holding that since the victims belonged to S.C. community, the trial should be held by the Special Court in view of the provision of section 14 of the said Act. But the ld. Judge committed a wrong in forwarding the case record directly to the court of the learned Special Judge. But the ld. Judge committed a wrong in forwarding the case record directly to the court of the learned Special Judge. The learned Advocate submits that the Special Court under the said Act cannot take cognizance of the offence under the said Act as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate. In support of his contention the learned Advocate of the petitioners relies on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (S.C.) 162 (Gangula Ashok & Anr. vs. State of A. P.). On perusal of the said judgement it appears that charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating agency directly to the Special Court under the Act of 1989 for trial of offences under the Act. A charge was framed by the learned Special Judge against the accused persons. It was at that stage an application was preferred before the High Court for quashing of the charge. It was held by the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court that the procedure adopted by the police in submitting charge-sheet directly to the Special Court, was not in accordance with law and the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence under the said Act without the case having been committed to it by the Magistrate. Accordingly the High Court set aside the proceedings of the Special Court and directed the charge-sheet and the connected papers to be sent back to the police officer concerned, who was further directed to present the same before the learned Magistrate concerned for the purpose of committal to the Special Court. 3. I have heard the learned Advocate of the petitioner. I have also gone through the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. In my considered view the impugned order suffers from illegality, in so far it relates to forwarding the entire case record by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura directly to the Special Court. Instead of doing that the learned Judge should have sent the entire case record to the learned Magistrate concerned for committal to the court of the learned Special Judge. A Special Court under the Act of 1989 cannot act as a court of original jurisdiction and it can take cognizance of the offence only when the case is committed to it. 4. A Special Court under the Act of 1989 cannot act as a court of original jurisdiction and it can take cognizance of the offence only when the case is committed to it. 4. In view of the discussion made above I find sufficient merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate of the petitioner. Accordingly, I allow the revisional application, set aside the proceeding before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura. The entire case record now be sent to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bankura for committal to the Special Court, Bankura. I further direct that on such committal the learned Judge, Special Court, Bankura shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Since this is a very old case of 1994. I further direct the concerned courts below to act expeditiously and to see that the matter is not dragged unnecessarily by granting adjournments. The revisional application accordingly succeeds and the same is allowed. Revisional application allowed.