The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed that criminal proceedings under SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is not vitiated merely because the magistrate had taken cognizance and committed the case to Special Court. (Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs Anand Athabhai Chaudhari)
The bench observed that the insertion of second proviso to Section 14 of the Act only gives additional powers to the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act. It cannot be said that it takes away jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial, the court said.
Facts of the case
The complaint alleging offences under SC-ST Act, was filed before the Magistrate who sent the complaint for investigation as per Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by observing that having heard the complainant and perused the documentary evidence and considering the seriousness of the case, the investigation is required. The investigation officer submitted the report to the Magistrate pointing out that the alleged offences are prima facie appear to have been committed by the accused persons. Thereafter, the Magistrate issued summons to the accused and thus took the cognizance of the alleged offences.
The accused, challenging this order and issuing summons, approached the Gujarat High Court.
The High Court quashed FIR as well as order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance on the grounds that (1) in view of the amendment to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, the Special Court can take cognizance directly and the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate can be said to be ousted and (2) looking at the allegation in the FIR, in absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the State Government, the concerned Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences.
Contention of the Parties
The prayer to quash the FIR and the order issuing the summons on the aforesaid ground was opposed by the learned counsel for the original complainant. Referring to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, it was submitted that the Special Court has power “only for trial” and the Special Court cannot take cognizance directly. It was further submitted that after filing of the summary report, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation, whereupon, Dy.Sp submitted summary report after investigation submitting that the offence has been made out.
It was submitted on behalf of the accused that
In view of the amended Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, the Special Court can take direct cognizance of the offence and therefore, now learned Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance directly.
Issue before the court
Where in a case where for the offences under Atrocities Act, the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate and thereafter the case is committed to the Court of Sessions / Special Court and cognizance is not straightway taken up by the Special Court / Court of Session, whether entire criminal proceedings for the offences under the Atrocities Act, 1989 can be said to have been vitiated, as so observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order ?
Court's observations and Judgment
Section 14 of the SC-ST Act, after its amendment in 2016, reads as follows:
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, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts:
Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act;
The bench noted that the insertion of the second proviso to Section 14 of the Act only gives additional powers to the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act.
It cannot be said that it takes away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial.
The bench noted that it is advisable that the Special Court directly take cognizance of the offences under the Atrocities Act.
Moreover, Additional powers have been given to the Special Court also to take cognizance of the offences.
The Court further noted that under Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if any Magistrate not empowered by the law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190, takes cognizance, such irregularities do not vitiate proceedings.
The bench said that at the most, it can be said to be irregular proceedings for which, it does not vitiate the proceedings.
The bench noted that even assuming that the High Court was right that in absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings are vitiated, in that case, the High Court could have directed the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire criminal proceedings.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
