Judgment:
Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application dated 15.12.2000 and 15.1.2001 filed by the complainant-petitioner for taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 Kanwar Raj Singh and PW.3 Parbat Singh for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989).
2. It arises in the following circumstances :
(i) That the petitioner filed a FIR with the Police Station, Jaisalmer on 21.6.2000 and in that FIR, after investigation, police submitted challan against four persons namely Rewant Singh, Nathu Singh, Swaroop Singh and Rughnath Singh for offence under Section 447, 323 and 427 I.P.C. and for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989). The challan was filed in the Court of CJM, Jaisalmer from where the Case was committed to the court of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jaisalmer (Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer).
3. In the court of Sessions Judge, the petitioner-complainant moved two applications stating that since in the FIR names of accused respondents No.2 and 3 are mentioned, but police for the reasons best known to it, did not file challan against them, therefore, congnizance be taken against respondents No.2 and 3 also.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer rejected both these applications on the ground that since process of recording evidence was not started, therefore, there was no power with him to take cognizance against the respondents No. 2 and 3 at that stage and thus, both the applications were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. Aggrieved from the said order, this revision petition has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In my opinion, this revision petition is devoid of any force in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P. (1). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that :
'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 straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act.'
8. Thus, since the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer against the four accused persons against whom challan was filed and no challan was filed against the respondents No.2 and 3 for which a prayer has been made for taking cognizance and before the learned Sessions Judge, there was no stage for proceeding under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the evidence was not recorded till then in the Court, in the above circumstances, if the learned Sessions Judge did not take cognizance against the respondents No.2 and 3 by passing the impugned order, he has committed no illegality or irregularity as the power to take cognizance lies with the committal Magistrate and not with the Sessions Judge, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Ashok (supra) and hence, the impugned order is liable to be confirmed one and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition has no force and same is accordingly dismissed after confirming the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer.