Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 425 (JHR)

Osman Miyan v. State of Jharkhand

2003-04-02

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No. 90 of 2001 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are, that Complaint Case No. 90 of 2001 was filed by the Opposite Party No.2 Dhawali Devi, against the petitioner and others, alleging therein that plot No. 3/6 of Khata No. 39 area 15 decimal which is a Dhan Kheth was the raiyati land of the complainant. The paddy grown by the Complainant was ready for harvesting. On 2.10.2001 the Complainant and her daughter-in-law, Phoolmati Devi had gone to harvest the paddy in their field, at that time about 9 A.M. all the accused persons came to that paddy field and started assaulting the complainant and her daughter-in-law. They also took away some ornaments after snatching from the person of the complainant valued at Rs. 4,000/-. They also took away the harvested paddy worth Rs. 1200/-. It was further alleged that the accused persons at the time of leaving the place of occurrence threatened them in the following language; - "SALA CHAMAR YADI THANA ME JAYEGA TO GHAR ME AAG LAGA KAR TUM LOGO KO JINDA JALA DENGE". 4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, after registering the complaint, transferred the same to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Latehar under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry and trial. 5. The learned transferee Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation, and thereafter started enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and then on the basis of the averments made in the complaint petition the statements of the complainant, on solemn affirmation and on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences under Section 147/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Act. 6. 6. The main ground for challenge of the order taking cognizance by the petitioner is that since there is specific provision in the said Act for enquiry and trial of the cases under the said Act by a Special court and, therefore, no other court is empowered to take cognizance under the said Act except by the special court which has been constituted under Section-14 of the said Act. 7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to quote Section-14 of the Act which reads as under:- "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". 8. The Parliament enacted the said Act to prevent the commission of the offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special court for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victim of such offence and for connected therewith or incidental thereto. 9. The object of Section-14 of the Act is to provide speedy trial for the offences under the Act. This Section merely provides for constitution of Special court for providing speedy trial and specifying a court of Session in each district to be declared as special court to try the offence under the Act. 10. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not provide for any procedure to be adopted by the special court for trial of offence under the said Act, therefore, general procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. have to be followed. There is no provision in the Act empowering the special court to take cognizance of an offence and, therefore, all provisions of Cr.P.C. with regard to investigation, enquiry and trial would be applicable to case under the Act except with regard to the matter for which a specific provision has been made under the Act and further that only those provisions of the Cr.P.C. would be excluded from application regarding which there has been specific mention in the Act regarding their exclusion. Therefore, when there is no specific provision in the Act for taking cognizance of the offence under the Act by the special court as constituted under Section 14 of the Act and, therefore, in my view the special court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences rather jurisdiction of the special court is only to try the offence under the said special Act. I further hold that for the purpose of the enquiry, investigation and cognizance under the said Act, the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply. 11. In that view of the matter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to make enquiry and take cognizance as provided under the Cr.P.C. with regard to the offence under the said Act. In the present case also the cognizance of the offence under the said Act has been taken by the Additional Judicial Magistrate after considering the materials on record, and, therefore, in my view no illegality of any kind has been committed by the trial court. 12. In the result, this application fails and it is accordingly dismissed.