[S.31 POCSO Act] No Jurisdiction Conferred On Special Court To Independently Try Other Offences Without There Being Any POCSO Offence: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar maintained,

“Section 31 only regulates and prescribes procedure to be followed in the proceedings before Special Court. Section 31 does not confer any new jurisdiction on Special Court to try offences other than offences under POCSO Act independently and without there being any offence under POCSO being tried by the Special Court along with such offences”.

These observations stemmed while answering a reference made by the Sessions Judge (PDJ) in Jammu. The accused, Rahul Kumar, faced charges under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a Special Court. However, the Special Court discharged the accused under POCSO and framed charges only under Section 302 IPC and consequently transferred the case to the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Judge, upon receiving the case file, questioned the jurisdictional competence of the Special Court to try the accused solely under IPC Section 302.

The Sessions Judge (PDJ) held the view that the Special Court, being a Court of Sessions under Section 31 of the POCSO Act, could try the accused for the offense under Section 302 IPC despite the discharge under POCSO.

After meticulously examining Sections 28 and 31 of the POCSO Act Justice Kumar observed that Section 28 empowers the government, in consultation with the High Court Chief Justice, to designate Special Courts (which must be Courts of Session) to handle POCSO Act offenses.

Crucially, the court added that Section 28(2) permits these Special Courts to try other offenses alongside POCSO charges during the same trial and emphasized that this authority is however restricted to situations where POCSO charges are also being tried.

Underscoring that Section 31 merely regulates procedural aspects and does not confer independent jurisdiction on Special Courts to try offences unrelated to the POCSO Act the bench elucidated that the Special Court's jurisdiction extends to trying IPC offences only when coupled with POCSO Act charges in the same trial, as mandated by Section 28(2).

In view of the said legal position the bench ruled that the Special Court Judge rightly transmitted the case to the Sessions Court, since the POCSO charges were dropped, the Special Court lost jurisdiction to proceed.

“.. With the alteration of charge and discharge of the respondent-accused under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, the Special Court has lost jurisdiction to try the case. In such like situations when charges are framed by the Special Court, the requirement of committal by Magistrate under Cr.P.C shall be deemed to have been dispensed with”, the bench remarked.

Accordingly, the Sessions Court (PDJ) was directed to retain the case or transfer it to another Sessions Judge for further proceedings.

Case Title: UT of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Rahul Kumar.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment