Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 757 (RAJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-19

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition u/s. 397, r/w Section 401. Cr.P.C. the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu dated 5.7.2000 in Case No. 11/99 whereby the learned Special Judge held that the case is not triable. by the Special Court and thus sent the matter to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh u/s. 228(1) Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. The SHO, P.S. Ratangarh after investigation filed charge-sheet against non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 for offence punishable u/,s. 182, 193 & 177, IPC r/w Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu. In the charge-sheet, it is mentioned in clear terms that complainant-Kartar Singh S/o Chunnilal, b/c Chamar, r/o Devnagar, Sonipat lodged the first infor- mation report wherein the caste of the complainant is shown to be Chamar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a certificate issued by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sonepat wherein Pradeep Kumar S/o Kartar Singh is shown to be a member of Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 does not dispute the caste of the petitioner. The caste `Chamar' has been notified in the list of Scheduled Caste categories. 4. In the order impugned, the Special Judge observed that whether the petitioner is member of scheduled caste or not can only be decided on the basis of documentary evidence, which is not the requirement of law. From the statement of the complainant and prosecution witnesses if it is established, that the complainant is member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe then the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are fully attracted. In this view of the matter, order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 5.7.2000 is set aside. The learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Ratangarh shall send the case back to the Spl. Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu who, in turn, shall decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******