What is scope of intention or knowldge for proving offence under SC &ST Atrocities Act?

Prior to the Amendment Act 1 of 2016, the words used in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act are "...... on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe".

6. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act has now been amended by virtue of Amendment Act 1 of 2016. By way of this amendment, the words "....... on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe" have been substituted with the words "........ knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe". Therefore, if subsequent to 26.01.2016 (i.e. the day on which the amendment came into effect), an offence under Indian Penal Code which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, is committed upon a victim who belongs to SC/ST community and the Accused person has knowledge that such victim belongs to SC/ST community, then the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is attracted. Thus, after the amendment, mere knowledge of the Accused that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to SC/ST community suffices to bring home the charge Under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

7. In the present case, unamended Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is applicable as the occurrence was on the night of 8/9.12.1995. From the unamended provisions of Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, it is clear that the statute laid stress on the intention of the Accused in committing such offence in order to belittle the person as he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2015

Decided On: 08.12.2017

 Asharfi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 1 SCC 742

Print Page

Whether magistrate can take cognizance of offence under SC and ST Atrocities Act?

The legislative change which has been noticed in the earlier
part of the judgment would clearly show that now, by the
Amendment Act, 2015 only, the Special Courts have been
empowered to take cognizance directly, of the offences
under the Act of 1989. It has been held so because the
Courts of Session are the Special Courts constituted under
Section 14 of the Act of 1989.
19.The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power
conferred under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 by
notification dated 26-10-1995 notified the Sessions Judge of
each of the districts to exercise power and jurisdiction under
the Act of 1989. Thereafter, the State of Chhattisgarh by its

notification dated 4-2-2015 in exercise of power conferred
under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 with the concurrence of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court has established the
Exclusive Special Court at Raipur for trial of the offence
under the said Act for Raipur District.
20.Thus, the trial Magistrate was not a Special Court notified
by the State Government within the meaning of Section 14
of the Act of 1989 read with Section 193 of the CrPC.
Therefore, learned Judicial / trial Magistrate had absolutely
no jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance of the
offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. Even
otherwise, the Special Courts constituted under Section 14
of the Act of 1989 have been empowered to take cognizance
of the offence directly under this Act with effect from 1-1-
2016 and learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences under the Act of 1989 on 3-5-2014. Therefore, by
no stretch of imagination, the impugned order directly
taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of
the Act of 1989, can be held to be the valid exercise of
jurisdiction by learned trial Court, rather it is a case of
exercise of jurisdiction by learned Magistrate not vested in it
by law and it is held to be without jurisdiction and without
authority of law.
21.Accordingly, it is held that the order dated 3-5-2014 passed
by the trial Magistrate directly taking cognizance of the
offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is without
jurisdiction and without authority of law and runs contrary
to Section 14 of the Act of 1989 read with Section 193 of
the CrPC and it is accordingly quashed. 
HEAD NOTE
The trial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
directly take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the Special Court under Section 14 of
the Act of 1989 who has jurisdiction under the Act of 1989.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.112 of 2015
Smt. Achla D Sapre, 
V
 Smt. Asha Mahilkar (Rajput), 
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Dated:25/02/2016
Citation:2016 CRLJ3313 Chhatis

Print Page

Whether magistrate can take cognizance of offence under SC and ST Atrocities Act?

Thus, the trial Magistrate was not a Special Court notified by the State Government within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act of 1989 read with Section 193 of the CrPC. Therefore, learned Judicial/trial Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Even otherwise, the Special Courts constituted under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 have been empowered to take cognizance of the offence directly under this Act with effect from 1-1-2016 and learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under the Act of 1989 on 3-5-2014. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned order directly taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, can be held to be the valid exercise of jurisdiction by learned trial Court, rather it is a case of exercise of jurisdiction by learned Magistrate not vested in it by law and it is held to be without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

21. Accordingly, it is held that the order dated 3-5-2014 passed by the trial Magistrate directly taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and runs contrary to Section 14 of the Act of 1989 read with Section 193 of the CrPC and it is accordingly quashed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 112 of 2015

Decided On: 25.02.2016

Achla D. Sapre  Vs. Asha Mahilkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation:2016 CRLJ 3313

Print Page