AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This is an appeal against the conviction of the accused u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Atrocities Prevention) of Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and
imposed fine of Rs.100/- to each accused, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. If the fine amount is collected, Rs.200/- will be
paid as compensation to P.W.1 Raji.
The case of the prosecution is that on 18.8.1992, P.W.2 Palani had gone to Samraj''s lands to do his agricultural work. On that day at about
5.00 p.m. P.W.3 Ammasi and one Periasami came to the house of P.W.1 Raji for the purpose of fixing Palani (P.W.2) to do some agricultural
work in their lands on the next day. Since P.W.2 Palani was not there, P.W.3 Ammasi and Periasami were chatting with Raji. P.W.1 Raji had
collected coconut fibres from the lands of her employer Samraj and she had spread them in front of her house for drying. Accused 1 to 4 came to
the house of Raji and questioned her as to where from she had stolen the coconut fibre. When P.W.1 Raji replied that she had picked them from
the lands of Samraj, A1 scolded her mentioning the name of the caste. Therefore, a complaint was given u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Act.
Learned Sessions Judge took the cognizance of the offence and framed charges and proceeded with trial and found the accused guilty of the
offence and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.100/-to each accused, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a week.
In this case, the accused have not been committed by the Magistrate but the Sessions Court has taken cognizance of the offence directly. This
Court has held in MANI @ PALANIVEL V. STATE; SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANGEYAM (2001) 2 LW 755 that the Sessions
Court cannot take cognizance of an offence and it cannot try the case unless it is committed by the Magistrate''s Court. Under such circumstances,
the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, in this case also, the facts of the case falls under the decisions of the Supreme Court and followed
by this Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the appeal is allowed.