The High Court dismissed an infructuous writ petition challenging an order allowing time for accused to produce an interim order. The court held that the Full Bench's view on exclusive trial by Special Judges under SC/ST Act rendered the matter unnecessary.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The interim order dated 26.8.1998 is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
...
ORDER
...
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2734/1998
OM PRAKASH. VS. RAJ. HIGH COURT & ANR.
DATE OF ORDER
::: 22.9.2014
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
This D.B. Civil Writ Petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Churu, Rajasthan dated 10.3.1998 in Case No.64/1996 (State vs. Girdhari Lal) pending in the Court of District Judge, Churu, by which he had allowed time to the counsel appearing for the accused to produce an interim order which may have restrained him to proceed further. Learned Special Judge observed that there is no stay on the proceedings of the case, however, since the matter regarding the powers of a Magistrate taking cognizance of the case is pending before the Full Bench of the High Court, the accused may approach the High Court.
Prior to making of the impugned order, learned Single Judge has passed an order in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Petition No.722/1996 staying the proceedings of the special case on the
2
ground that the issue is pending before the Full Bench.
The Full Bench has since rendered its opinion in the matter in S.B. Crl. Misc. Application No.378/1994 (Bhura Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as follows :-
“In the result we answer the reference as under :-
(1) The cases involving offences under SC/ST Act are exclusively 'triable' by a Special Court created under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act.
(2) Section 193 of the Code has no application to trial of offences under the SC/ST Act by the Special Court and the Special Court under SC/ST Act has jurisdiction to deal with the cases involving offences under SC/ST Act right from the initial stages in the same manner as a Magistrate can deal with them under the Code.
(3) The Magistrates having jurisdiction over the area in which offences under SC/ST Act are alleged to be committed, empowered to deal with the cases under Section 190 of the Code will also have the jurisdiction to deal with cases during the “inquiry” i.e. Pretrial stages including exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code and thereafter he shall transmit all such cases to the Special Court situated within that jurisdiction.
Reference answered accordingly.”
The question of law, so far as this Court is to consider, is no longer res integra. The Full Bench has held that with regard to the crimes under the SC/ST Act, the trial can only be held from the initial stage before a Special Judge under the Act.
3
In view of the above, legal issues and prayers made in the writ petition have been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The interim order dated 26.8.1998 is hereby vacated.
The Trial Court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
S.Phophaliya/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the discharge of prosecution under SC/ST Act is maintainable after the Full Bench held that trial must start only before Special Judge.
Whether legal issues and prayers made in the writ petition are rendered infructuous due to the Full Bench order.
Whether to vacate the interim order wherein accused was allowed time to produce an order restraining prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhura Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Distinguished¶17
S.B. Crl. Misc. Application No.378/1994 (Bhura Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Omkar Prakash
Raj. High Court
Vijay Bishnoi
Sunil Ambwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
