2000 (1) TMI 975 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a "special court" under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it.
2. The legality of the procedure adopted by the investigating officer in filing the charge-sheet directly to the Special Court.
3. The correctness of the High Court's direction to the Special Court regarding framing charges after committal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Cognizance by Special Court
The primary issue was whether a "special court" under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act), can take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it. The Supreme Court held that a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session. According to Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), a Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a magistrate. The Court emphasized that neither the Code nor the Act provides any provision allowing the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence directly. Therefore, a complaint or charge sheet cannot be filed directly before the Special Court under the Act.

Issue 2: Procedure Adopted by Investigating Officer
The investigating officer filed the charge-sheet directly before the Sessions Court designated as the Special Court. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh found this procedure to be incorrect and not in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Special Court, being a Court of Session, must follow the procedure outlined in the Code, which requires the case to be committed to it by a magistrate.

Issue 3: High Court's Direction on Framing Charges
The High Court directed that after committal, the Special Court should frame appropriate charges. The Supreme Court found this direction premature and held that it is for the Special Court to decide the next course of action after hearing both sides as provided in Section 227 of the Code. The appellants are entitled to raise all their contentions at that stage, and the Special Court should pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the proceedings initiated by the Special Court but modified the High Court's directions regarding the framing of charges. The appeal was disposed of with directions that the Special Court should decide on the next steps after committal, considering the appellants' contentions if they make a plea for discharge.