1999 (4) TMI 656 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is empowered to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the High Court has the power to vest non-territorial jurisdiction upon the Special Court through its circular orders.
3. The procedure to be adopted for cases pending trial and charge sheets involving both the Act and IPC offences.
4. The procedure for the Special Court to take cognizance of offences.
5. The applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act in cases of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.
6. The applicability of Section 3(2)(v) when the offender is unaware that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
7. The jurisdiction of the Special Court to try an offender who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe along with other offenders who are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cognizance and Jurisdiction of Special Court:
The Special Court under Section 14 of the Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC. The Court must follow the committal procedure as laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court of Session, even when designated as a Special Court, remains a Court of Session and cannot assume original jurisdiction without a committal order from a Magistrate.

2. High Court's Power to Vest Jurisdiction:
The High Court's circular orders cannot vest non-territorial jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The circulars issued by the High Court, including the one dated 12-2-1992, do not override the statutory requirement of committal under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. The circulars cannot confer powers on the Special Court that are not provided by the Act or the Cr.P.C.

3. Procedure for Pending Cases:
For cases involving both the Act and IPC offences, the correct procedure is to file the charge sheets before the Magistrate, who will then commit the case to the Special Court. The Special Court can only take cognizance after such committal. The pending charge sheets and cases transferred to the Special Court without following this procedure must be returned to the Magistrate for proper committal.

4. Cognizance of Offences by Special Court:
The Special Court cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the Act. The procedure requires that the charge sheets be filed before the Magistrate, who will then commit the case to the Special Court. This ensures compliance with Section 193 of the Cr.P.C., which bars the Court of Session from taking cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless committed by a Magistrate.

5. Applicability of Section 3(2)(v) for Severe Offences:
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, which provides for enhanced punishment, does not apply to offences under Section 302 IPC (punishable with death or life imprisonment). The provision is intended for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, but not for those with higher prescribed punishments like life imprisonment or death.

6. Knowledge of Victim's Caste:
Section 3(2)(v) is not attracted if the offence is committed without the knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The motive and intention at the time of the offence are crucial. If the offence was not committed on the ground of the victim's caste, the enhanced punishment provision does not apply.

7. Jurisdiction Over SC/ST Offenders:
The Special Court has jurisdiction to try an offender who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe along with other offenders who are not members of such castes, provided the offences are committed in the course of the same transaction. This is in line with Section 223 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for joint trials of offences committed in the same transaction.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarifies that the Special Court under the Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences without committal by a Magistrate. It also addresses the procedural requirements for handling cases involving both the Act and IPC offences, the applicability of enhanced punishment provisions, and the jurisdiction over offenders from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The decision underscores the need for legislative amendments to address procedural lacunae and ensure effective implementation of the Act.