Case Law Details
The trial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the Special Court under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 who has jurisdiction under the Act of 1989.
1. The splendid question of law that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether the trial Magistrate can directly take cognisance of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled TribeThe splendid question of law that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether the trial Magistrate can directly take cognisance of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or only it is the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act of 1989.s (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or only it is the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act of 1989.
2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 15-4-2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 227/2014 by which learned Special Judge, Raipur has affirmed the order passed by the trial Magistrate dated 3-5- 2014 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7859/2014, whereby and where under learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognisance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’).
3. Respondent No. 1 herein preferred a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 against the petitioner herein stating inter alia that the petitioner, on the date of incident, has intentionally insulted / intimidated respondent No.1 with intent to humiliate knowing fully well that respondent No.1 is a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby committed the offence under the Act of 1989. Learned trial Magistrate by its order dated 3-5-2014 after recording the evidence of respondent No. 1 / complainant and his witnesses, took cognisance of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 against the petitioner and directed for issuance of summon to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Magistrate, the petitioner herein preferred a criminal revision bearing Cr.Rev.No.227/2014 before the Court of Session.
4. The Court of Session by the impugned order dated 15-4- 2015 dismissed the revision petition holding that by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 (for short ‘the Ordinance of 2014’), which came into force with effect from 4-3-2014, the jurisdiction to take direct cognisance was conferred to the Special Judge/Special Court, but the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to directly entertain complaint was not specifically barred, therefore, learned trial Magistrate was fully justified in entertaining and taking cognisance of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
