Learned Single Judge further directed that on such companymittal the special Court shall frame appropriate charges in the light of the observations in the order.
Appellants have filed this appeal by special leave in challenge of the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
A charge was framed by the Special Judge against both the appel lants for the aforesaid offences respectively.
Besides first appellant, the investigating officer arrayed his wife as the second appellant for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the offences put against her husband, on the allegation that when Kumari Swetha companyplained to the second appellant of the misdemeanor companymitted by the first accused, she tried to persuade the companyplainant number to divulge ft to anybody else.
It was presumably at the said stage that the appellants moved the High Court for quashing the charge as well as the charge sheet on various reasons.
In the charge sheet, first appellant is alleged to have companymitted the offence under Section 3 1 XI of the Act and also Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
2000 1 SCR 468 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Subsequently the police dropped Section 354 of the IPC from the charge sheet and filed a revised charge sheet pursuant to a query put by the Special Judge companycerned.
Accordingly the learned Single Judge set aside the proceedings of the Special Court and directed the charge sheet and the companynected papers to be returned to the police officer companycerned who, in turn, was directed to present the same before a Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class for the purpose of companymittal to the Special Court.
A Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh found that the procedure adopted by the inves tigating officer in filing the charge sheet straight away to the Special Court was number in accordance with law, and the Special Judge had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance of any offence under the Act without the case having been companymitted to that companyrt.
One Kumari G. Swetha was a resident of the said hostel On 27.2.1996 the said Swetha lodged a companyplaint with the police alleging that on 61.1996 the first appellant outraged tried to outrage her modesty.
The police after investigation, filed a charge sheet directly before the Sessions Court, Karim Nagar Andhra Pradesh which was designated as the special companyrt for trial of offences under the Act companymitted within the territorial limits of the district companycerned.
Can a special companyrt which is envisaged in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, for short the Act take companynizance of any offence without the case being companymitted to that companyrt?
