STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusGITA RAM

    A                       STA TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                          v.
                                      GITA RAM

                                    SEPTEMBER 8, 2000
                                                                                                     .._
    B                      [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]                                         '"

               Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
         1989: Sections 14 & 2(1)(d)---Sessions Court designated as Special Court                    ~

        for trial of offences under the Act---Such specified Special Court n~t denuded
                                                                                              ·r
                                                                                                  ....
    c   of its character and powers as a Sessions Court-Competent to try offences
        under the Indian Penal Code-Indian Penal Code, 1860.

              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 465-Technical objection
        as to jurisdiction-not taken at earliest stage-Cannot be allowed to be
        taken after completion of trial.
    D
              In this appeal, the question arising for consideration was whether a
        Sessions Court designated as a 'Special Court' as provided under the
        Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
        would cease to be a Sessions Court and lost its jurisdiction to try offences
    E   under the Indian Penal Code.

              In the instant case the conviction and sentence awarded by such specified       :
        Sessions Court for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was set
        aside by the High Court on the ground that the Special Court could not have

-   F   taken cognizance of the offence under section 376 IPC separately and
        commitment of the case to such a Court by the Magistrate was illegal. The
        High Court further directed a retrial by a competent court.

             Setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the appeal back to

    G
        the High Court for disposal on merits, this Court.

              HELD : 1. A Court of Session specified as a Special Court for trial of
        offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
        Atrocities) Act 1989 continues to have jurisdiction to try offences under the
                                                                                              ..
        Indian Penal Code and the order of committal to such Court by the Magistrate
        was legally valid. [198-D]
    H                                        196
                                                                                          r
      STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. GITA RAM [THOMAS, J.] 197

      1.1. It was intended by the legislature that only a Court of Session and   A
no other court be specified as a Special Court for trial of offences under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989. Hence such specified Court would continue to be essentially a Court
of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude it of
its character or powers as a Court of Session. (198-G)
                                                                                 B
      Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 504, relied
on.

     2. If any party to a criminal proceeding is aggrieved on any technical
ground, he must raise the objection at the earliest stage; he cannot be heard    C
on that aspect after the whole trial is over. [199-B]

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
765 of 2000.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.99 of the Himachal Pradesh            D
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 73of1999.

      Anil Nag for the Appellant.

     D.K. Garg, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ms. Renu George for the
Respondent.
                                                                                 E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

      By the impugned judgment a learned single Judge of the High Court
ordered a redo of the whole laborious exercise once completed in full measure    F
at great cost of time and energy, solely on a technical ground.

      Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'the Act').                G
       A Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court who was specified
as a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. A charge was framed
by the said Sessions Court against the respondent only for the offence under
Section 376 IPC. After trial the said Sessions Judge convicted the respondent
for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment      H
    198                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   for seven years. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court challenging,.
    the conviction and sentence. A learned single Judge of the High Court set
    aside the said conviction and sentence on one technical ground i.e. the trial
    Judge had no jurisdiction as he was only the Special Court specified under
    the Act. The case was committed to that court and resultantly that court has
    no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the IPC separately,
B   according to the High Court. The operative portion of the High Court judgment
    reads thus:

            "Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence is set
            aside. Since the very commitment of the case to the Special Court by
c           the learned Magistrate vi de order dated 24.3 .1998 was illegal as he
            could not have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1989,
            the learned trial court shall return the record of the case to the learned
            Magistrate for being returned to the prosecution for being presented
            to the competent court."

D         This Court has considered the question whether the Sessions Court
    specified as a Special Court under the provisions of the Act will cease to be
    a Sessions Court, or whether he would continue to be the Sessions Judge.
    (Vide Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2000) 2 SCC 504). This
    Court found that even after such specification the Sessions. Court would
    continue to be the Sessions Court and a trial before that court can be held
E   only in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure. The following is the dictum laid down by this Court:

           "It is clear from Sections 14 and 2(1 )(d) of the Act that it is for trial
           of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of Sessions in
           each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the
F          word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in the Act it is clearly
           distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a fol'.erunner to
           the trial. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and
           no other court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act.
           Evidently the legislature wanted the Special Court to be a Court of
           Session. Hence the particular Court of Session, even after being
G
           specified as a Special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court
           of Session and des.ignation of it as a Special Court would not denude
           it of its character or. even powers as a Court of Session. The trial in
           such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in
           Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions
H          for "trial before a Court of Session."
      STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. GITA RAM [THOMAS, J.]                    199
       We are distressed to note that the learned single Judge was not told        A
by the government advocate of the fall out of such a view, if taken by the
learned sihgle Judge, that it mP,ans all the witnesses once examined in full
should be called back again, and the whole chief-examiflation,. cross-
examination, re-examination and questioning of the accused under Section 313
of the Code, hearing arguments, then examination _of defence witnesses further     B
again final arguments to be heard and preparation of judgment once again.
The very object underlined in Section 465 of the Code is that if on any
technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved, he must
raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. If he did not raise it at the
earliest stage he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over.

      The premise adopted by the learned single Judge of the High Court is
                                                                                   c
patently erroneous. The Sessions Court which tried the case for the offence
under Section 376, IPC continued to have jurisdiction to try the same, and the
order of committal was legally valid. The appeal filed before the High Court
could only be disposed of on merits and not on the premise erroneously taken
by the learned Single Judge. He has not considered the appeal on merits. We,       D
therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. We remit the case back to the
High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits.

      This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

RC.                                                       Appeal disposed of.      E