Rajeev Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

K.K. Misra, J.—List revised.

Heard Sri D.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.B. Srivastava, A.K. Sand and Sri. D.N. Upadhya, learned A.G.As.

The short controversy pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that a complaint was filed before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi and on the basis of the complaint and evidence recorded before him, he has summoned the revisionist u/s 3 (2) (ii) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (briefly the Act). My attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Act and it is contended that there is no provision in the Act authorizing the learned Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the complaint straightaway and record the evidence and summon the accused. In support of his contention he had relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala, . It has been observed by the Apex Court that a special court under this Act is essentially a court of session and it can take cognizance of the offence only when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provision of Cr. P.C. It was thus observed that "Neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified Court of Session (special court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate." In the present case the case has been instituted before the Additional Sessions Judge. After recording the evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionist. This summoning order is against the spirit of law and deserves to be quashed.

It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the special Judge cannot take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 (1) ACR 451(SC) : 2000 (2) JIC 76 (SC), held that neither in the Code of Criminal Procedure nor in the Act there is any provision for taking cognizance straightaway. It is settled view of law that if the Special Act is silent on any point then the provisions of Cr. P.C. will apply. It was held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vidyadharan (supra), that a special court under this Act is essentially 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 provision of the Code. As has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above cases that there is no provision under the Act for taking cognizance straightaway by the special Judge, the learned Additional Session Judge has exceeded his right by accepting the complaint straightaway and recording the evidence himself and summoning the revisionist.

In view of what has been discussed above, the complaint and the summoning order are liable to be quashed.

In the result, the revision is allowed. The complaint and summoning order dated 30.5.1994 are quashed.