State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gita Ram
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment a learned single Judge of the High Court
ordered a redo of the whole laborious exercise once completed in full measure F
at great cost of time and energy, solely on a technical ground.
Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'the Act').
A Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court who was specified
as a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. A charge was framed
by the said Sessions Court against the respondent only for the offence under
Section 376 IPC. After trial the said Sessions Judge convicted the respondent
for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment H
A for seven years. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court challenging,.
the conviction and sentence. A learned single Judge of the High Court set
aside the said conviction and sentence on one technical ground i.e. the trial
Judge had no jurisdiction as he was only the Special Court specified under
the Act. The case was committed to that court and resultantly that court has
no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the IPC separately,
B according to the High Court. The operative portion of the High Court judgment
reads thus:
"Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence is set
aside. Since the very commitment of the case to the Special Court by
the learned Magistrate vi de order dated 24.3 .1998 was illegal as he
could not have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1989,
the learned trial court shall return the record of the case to the learned
Magistrate for being returned to the prosecution for being presented
to the competent court."
D This Court has considered the question whether the Sessions Court
specified as a Special Court under the provisions of the Act will cease to be
a Sessions Court, or whether he would continue to be the Sessions Judge.
(Vide Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2000) 2 SCC 504). This
Court found that even after such specification the Sessions. Court would
continue to be the Sessions Court and a trial before that court can be held
E only in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The following is the dictum laid down by this Court:
"It is clear from Sections 14 and 2(1 )( d) of the Act that it is for trial
of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Sessions in
each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the
word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in the Act it is clearly
distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a fol'.erunner to
the trial. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and
no other court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act.
Evidently the legislature wanted the Special Court to be a Court of
Session. Hence the particular Court of Session, even after being
specified as a Special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court
of Session and des.ignation of it as a Special Court would not denude
it of its character or. even powers as a Court of Session. The trial in
such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in
Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions
for "trial before a Court of Session."
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. GITA RAM [THOMAS, J.] 199
We are distressed to note that the learned single Judge was not told A
by the government advocate of the fall out of such a view, if taken by the
learned sihgle Judge, that it mP,ans all the witnesses once examined in full
should be called back again, and the whole chief-examiflation,. cross
examination, re-examination and questioning of the accused under Section 313
of the Code, hearing arguments, then examination _of defence witnesses further B
again final arguments to be heard and preparation of judgment once again.
The very object underlined in Section 465 of the Code is that if on any
technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved, he must
raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. If he did not raise it at the
earliest stage he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over.
The premise adopted by the learned single Judge of the High Court is
patently erroneous. The Sessions Court which tried the case for the offence
under Section 376, IPC continued to have jurisdiction to try the same, and the
order of committal was legally valid. The appeal filed before the High Court
could only be disposed of on merits and not on the premise erroneously taken
by the learned Single Judge. He has not considered the appeal on merits. We, D
therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. We remit the case back to the
High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
RC. Appeal disposed of. E