Magistrate Taking Cognizance Before Transfer To Special Court Does Not Vitiate Proceedings Under SC/ST Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offences under the SC/ST Act before committing the case to the Special Court does not, by itself, result in the entire criminal proceedings being vitiated.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that even if the ACJM's initial exercise of jurisdiction in taking cognizance and recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC was procedurally irregular, that irregularity could not be treated as an incurable illegality which vitiates subsequent proceedings.

The Court thus dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Ajai Yadav and two others challenging a summoning order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ballia, on May 22, 2019.

"The appellants have not demonstrated how the earlier proceedings before the Magistrate deprived them of any substantive right or occasioned a failure of justice", the Court observed.

Case in brief

The complaint was initially instituted before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by a member of a Scheduled Caste.

It was alleged that the accused, armed with lathis and sticks, came to the complainant's house, abused him using caste-related expressions, assaulted him and threatened that he would not be permitted to reside in the village.

It was also alleged that his wife was abused and assaulted when she intervened. The accused were further alleged to have threatened to kill the complainant and parade his wife naked through the village.

The concerned ACJM took cognizance of the offences and recorded the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC and his wife's statement under Section 202 CrPC.

Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Special SC-ST Court by an order of the District and Sessions Judge.

Challenging the proceedings before the ACJM's court, the accused moved the High Court. It was their stance that, in view of Sections 2(bd) and 14 of the SC/ST Act, the proceedings before the Magistrate were contrary to law and the subsequent summoning order could not be sustained.

High Court's observations

The High Court noted that the 2016 amendment to Section 14 of the SC/ST Act empowers the Special Court to take direct cognizance of offences under the Act without the necessity of committal by a Magistrate. The object of the amendment is to facilitate speedy adjudication of offences under the Act.

However, the Court observed that this power did not mean that every procedural step previously undertaken by a Magistrate rendered all subsequent proceedings void.

"The nature of the alleged irregularity, the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, particularly, the question of prejudice or failure of justice must also be considered", the Court said.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari 2022, the High Court noted that criminal proceedings are not automatically vitiated merely because a Magistrate takes cognizance of offences under the SC/ST Act and the case thereafter proceeds before the Special Court.

The High Court also examined Sections 460 and 461 CrPC, which distinguish between specified irregularities that do not vitiate criminal proceedings and acts performed without lawful authority that render proceedings void.

It noted that Section 460(e) CrPC protects certain instances where a Magistrate erroneously but in good faith takes cognizance, subject to the statutory conditions.

The Court clarified that Section 460 cannot be invoked mechanically to validate every act falling within Section 461.

In the present case, the Court noted that the Special Judge had considered the complaint and the material available on record after the transfer. The HC found that the appellants failed to show that the Special Judge lacked statutory competence or that the procedure adopted had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

"The mere fact that the complainant and a witness had earlier been examined by the Magistrate does not, in the circumstances of the present case, furnish a sufficient ground to nullify the subsequent summoning order", the Court said.

On the merits of the case, the High Court found that the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC contained specific allegations concerning the alleged assault, caste-related abuses and threats.

The Court observed that, at the summoning stage, it was not required to determine the truthfulness of every allegation or the ultimate sufficiency of the evidence for conviction. It added that it was not required to conduct a "mini-trial" by weighing witness credibility or resolving disputed questions of fact.

Thus, finding no illegality or infirmity warranting appellate interference, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It directed the appellants, if not already enlarged on bail, to appear before the concerned court and apply for regular bail within two weeks.