N. Palanisamy, K. Rajamani and N. Ramasamy vs State, by Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Wing, Kajamalai, Trichy

A.K. Rajan, J.—The appeal is against the conviction of the accused u/s 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Prevention of

Atrocities Act, 1989.

The case of the complainant is that the appellants/accused and the respondent are the residents of the place called, T.Venkatapuram. The first

and second appellants prevented the complainant from taking drain water through their land and there was enmity in that regard. On 25.10.1993,

at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.1 went to the land where the accused were present. There he saw that they were obliterating the canal made by the

complainant. When questioned, they scolded P.W.1 mentioning his community and therefore, P.W.1 gave a complaint, Ex.P.1. On the basis of the

complaint, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with the trial and after conclusion of the trial, convicted each of the

accused for the offence u/s 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Against that conviction,

this appeal has been filed.

The counsel for the appellant argued that cognizance can be taken only by the Magistrate and on committal, the Sessions Judge gets jurisdiction

to try the sessions case. In the absence of committal, the entire proceedings of the Sessions Judge is invalid. In support of this contention, he relied

upon a decision reported in Mani @ Palanisami v. State 2001 2 L.W. (Crl.) 755 where this Court held,

Unless it is positively and specifically provided differently, no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly without the case being

committed to it by a Magistrate.

In the above case also, a similar situation arose where the Sessions Judge had proceeded with the case even without the Magistrate committing the

case, cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge and subsequently trial was started and finally convicted the appellant in that case.

Therefore, it was held that the conviction of the appellant in that case was not maintainable and consequently, the conviction was set aside and the

accused was acquitted.

Therefore, the decision cited supra squarely applies to the present case. In this case also, the Sessions Judge has taken cognizance without being

committed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the entire procedure is vitiated. The conviction is to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. Criminal

Appeal is allowed.