Judgment:
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. This case registered on an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code') is at the instance of the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 2 of 1998 of the Court of Special Judge, Jajpur, They challenge the order of the cognizance passed on 24.3.1998 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge. Jajpur besides the order in allowing representation for one date on the application under Section 205 of the Code filed by accused-petitioner Pravati Guru as per order of the Special Judge on 20.7.1998.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code was heard along with a batch of Criminal Misc. Cases, where orders of cognizance have been challenged on the grounds of non-compliance of the provision in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short, 'the Rules'). The issue involved in this case being different, this case is disposed of separately as per the following order.
3. Certified copy of the order-sheet in I.C.C. No. 2 of 1998 shows that on 21.3.1998 complaint was directly filed in the Court of Special Judge, Jajpur complaining of offences inter alia under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act'), and learned Special Judge on 24.3.1998 took cognizance of that offence after examining the complainant/opposite party. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioner challenging legality and maintainability of the order of cognizance and issue of process under Section 204 of the Code, but this application is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission without issuing notice to the opposite party for the simple reason that the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P., (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, mandates that:
'16. Hence we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge sheet cannot straight way be laid before the Special Court under the Act.'
4. The above quoted ratio makes it clear that the impugned order of cognizance without an order of commitment is bad in law and not maintainable. Thus, the order of cognizance and issue of process vide the impugned order dated 24.3.1998 is illegal and accordingly the same is quashed. It will be appropriate for the Special Judge to send the complaint to the Court of the Magistrate who has territorial jurisdiction to deal with such complaint. Upon receipt of the complaint, such Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. after serving notice on the complainant, Ball bonds filed by the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge, Jajpur shall stand discharged.
The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.