2000 JTR(SC) 1481
2000 4 AICLR 190 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 2940 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 3181 ; 2000 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 644 ; 2001 42 AllCriC 255 ; 2001 42 AllLR 625 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1688 ; 2001 1 BBCJ(SC) 46 ; 2000 CriLR 747 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 21 ; 2000 CrLJ 4039 ; 2000 3 EastCrC(SC) 1093 ; 2000 2 JCC 612 ; 2000 10 JT 276 ; 2000 LatestHLJ 913 ; 2000 3 MPLJ 498 ; 2000 2 OLR 682 ; 2000 4 PLJR(SC) 198 ; 2000 4 RCR(Cri) 97 ; 2000 6 Scale 321 ; 2000 7 SCC 452 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1390 ; 2000 SCR 196 ; 2000 2 UJ 1421 ; 2000 KHC 1355 ; 2000 6 Supreme 231
2000(6) Supreme 231
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Gita Ram -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 811 of 2000)
Decided on 8-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Anil Nag, Advocate.
For the Respondent : D.K. Garg, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ms. Renu George, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
A Sessions Court which is designated as Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not cease to be a Sessions Court.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.376
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT : S.14, S.2(1)(d), S.3, .
(A) The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Sections 14 and 2(1)(d), provides for the specification of a particular Court of Sessions as a Special Court to exclusively try offences under the Act, ensuring that only such a Special Court, constituted as a Sessions Court, can conduct the trial in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Read together with Section 3 of the Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial of the offence under Section 376 IPC was required to be conducted by the Sessions Court specified as a Special Court, and not by any other court lacking that special designation.
(B) The core legal principles are that the designation of a Sessions Court as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act does not divest it of its character as a Sessions Court, the trial must be conducted strictly in the manner prescribed by Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal against conviction must be decided on merits, and a single judge of the High Court cannot set aside a conviction on a technical ground if the trial court had valid jurisdiction, especially where the objection was not raised at the earliest stage as required under Section 465 of the Code.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was charge-sheeted for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A Magistrate committed the case to a Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Act. The Sessions Court tried only the Section 376 IPC charge, convicted the respondent, and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence on the technical ground that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction as he was merely the Special Court specified under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Court, even after being specified as a Special Court under the Act, continues to be a Sessions Court with jurisdiction to try the offence, and the order of committal was legally valid. The High Courts single judge erred in premise and failed to consider the appeal on merits, leading to an erroneous conclusion that undermined the trial process and the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues:
Whether a Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act loses its character as a Sessions Court and whether it can try an offence under Section 376 IPC separately, and whether a High Court can set aside a conviction on a technical ground when the trial court had valid jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act retains its character as a Sessions Court and continues to have jurisdiction to try all charges, including offences under the Indian Penal Code. An appeal decided on a technical ground without addressing the merits is unsustainable, and the trial must proceed in compliance with Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Result:
The impugned High Court judgment is set aside, and the case is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on its merits.
(A) The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Sections 14 and 2(1)(d), provides for the specification of a particular Court of Sessions as a Special Court to exclusively try offences under the Act, ensuring that only such a Special Court, constituted as a Sessions Court, can conduct the trial in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Read together with Section 3 of the Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial of the offence under Section 376 IPC was required to be conducted by the Sessions Court specified as a Special Court, and not by any other court lacking that special designation.
(B) The core legal principles are that the designation of a Sessions Court as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act does not divest it of its character as a Sessions Court, the trial must be conducted strictly in the manner prescribed by Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal against conviction must be decided on merits, and a single judge of the High Court cannot set aside a conviction on a technical ground if the trial court had valid jurisdiction, especially where the objection was not raised at the earliest stage as required under Section 465 of the Code.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was charge-sheeted for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A Magistrate committed the case to a Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Act. The Sessions Court tried only the Section 376 IPC charge, convicted the respondent, and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence on the technical ground that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction as he was merely the Special Court specified under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Court, even after being specified as a Special Court under the Act, continues to be a Sessions Court with jurisdiction to try the offence, and the order of committal was legally valid. The High Courts single judge erred in premise and failed to consider the appeal on merits, leading to an erroneous conclusion that undermined the trial process and the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues:
Whether a Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act loses its character as a Sessions Court and whether it can try an offence under Section 376 IPC separately, and whether a High Court can set aside a conviction on a technical ground when the trial court had valid jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Atrocities Act retains its character as a Sessions Court and continues to have jurisdiction to try all charges, including offences under the Indian Penal Code. An appeal decided on a technical ground without addressing the merits is unsustainable, and the trial must proceed in compliance with Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Result:
The impugned High Court judgment is set aside, and the case is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on its merits.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment a single judge of the High Court ordered a redo of the whole laborious exercise once completed in full measure at great cost of time and energy, solely on a technical ground.
3. Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 for short the Act ).
4. A Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court who was specified as a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. A charge was framed by the said sessions court against the respondent only for the offence under Section 376 IPC. After trial the said Sessions Judge convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence. A learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the said conviction and sentence on one technical ground i.e. the trial judge had no jurisdiction as he was only the Special Court specified under the Act. The case was committed to that court and resultantly that court has no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the IPC separately, according to the High Court. The operative portion of the High Court judgment reads thus :
"Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence is set aside. Since the very commitment of the case to the Special Court by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.3.1998 was illegal as he could not have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1989, the learned trial Court shall return the record of the case to the learned Magistrate for being returned to the prosecution for being presented to the competent court."
5. This Court has considered the question whether the Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the provisions of the Act will cease to be a Sessions Court, or whether he would continue to be the Sessions Judge. (Vide Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh1). This Court found that even after such specification the Sessions Court would continue to be the Sessions Court and a trial before that court can be held only in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The following is the dictum laid down by this Court :
"It is clear from Sections 14 and 2(1)(d) of the Act that it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Sessions in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in the Act it is clearly distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. Evidently the legislature wanted the Special Court to be a Court of Session. Hence the particular Court of Session, even after being specified as a Special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of Session. The trial in such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "trial before a Court of Session."
6. We are distressed to note that learned Single Judge was not told by the government advocate of the fall out of such a view, if taken by the single judge, that it means all the witnesses once examined in full should be called back again, and the whole chief-examination, cross-examination, re-examination and questioning of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, hearing arguments, then, examination of defence witnesses further again final arguments to be heard and preparation of judgment once again. The very object underlined in Section 465 of the Code is that if on any technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved he must raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. If he did not raise it at the earliest stage he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over.
7. The premise adopted by the learned single judge of the High Court is patently erroneous. The Sessions Court which tried the case for the offence under Section 376, IPC continued to have jurisdiction to try the same, and the order of committal was legally valid. The appeal filed before the High Court could only be disposed of on merits and not on the premise erroneously taken by the learned Single Judge. He has not considered the appeal on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. We remit the case back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits.
8. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
**************