Chandra Pal Singh vs Bhura Jatav

Krishn Kumar Lahoti Judge

This petition is directed against an order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Sessions judge, Morena, by which he declined to entertain the revision petition preferred by the petitioner as having no jurisdiction. The revision was filed against and order of cognizance in the matter by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaura.

It is submitted by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge declined to entertain the revision on the ground that only Special Judge can take cognizance in the matter. While the Special Judge on an early occasion in the same matter passed an order dated 11.7.2011 in Criminal Revision No. 1/2011 that such revision lies to the Sessions Judge. It is submitted that this revision may be entertained and the Sessions Judge may be directed to either hear the revision himself or to transfer it to a competent Court of jurisdiction. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that in case the Sessions Judge finds it appropriate, he may transfer the matter to a competent Court of jurisdiction but the petitioner''s grievance must be heard and decided by any of the Court, either by the Sessions Judge or by the Special Judge.

From the perusal of the orders passed by the Sessions in Criminal Revision No.0/11and also by the order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Morena in Case No. 1/2011, it appears that both the Courts have refused to entertain the revision on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and other Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision.

The Court of Session has been defined in Section 9 of the Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge has been given wide power of revision while hearing the revision petition u/s 399 Cr.P.C.

Section 399 Cr.P.C. as is referred reads as under:-

Sessions Judge''s powers of revision.-(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401.

(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.

(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.

The aforesaid Section gives wide power to the Sessions Judge to exercise the powers as are vested in it u/s 399 and 401 Cr.P.C., The learned Sessions judge found that u/s 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), the powers are vested with the Special Court and he is having no jurisdiction to consider the prayer made in the revision.

Section 14 of the Act provides as under:-

Special Court:-For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrent of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.

The aforesaid Section 14 gives power to the Special Court for trial. But to consider the grievance of the petitioner herein raised in the revision that whether cognizance could have been taken in the matter or not can very well be looked into by the Sessions Judge as it was at the stage of pre-trial and the Section 14 of the Act would be applicable at the trial stage after the commitment of the case before the Special Court. In view of the aforesaid, the Sessions Judge was empowered to consider the grievance of the petitioner raised in the petition.

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the Sessions Judge, Morena to reconsider the matter in the light of provisions as contained in Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. However, if the Sessions Judge finds that the matter deserves to be heard by any other Court, the Sessions Judge shall be within his jurisdiction to transfer the case for consideration before another Court or even to the Judge, who has been empowered as a Special Judge to hear and decide the matter under the Act.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands finally disposed of.