IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1045 of 2008() ------------------------- C.M.P. NO. 2103/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, IDUKKI CRL.R.P. NO. 6/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(SPECIAL COURT FOR N.D.P.S ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- T.K.GOPALAN, S/O.KELA, THAZHATHUPADATHIL HOUSE, KULAMAVU KARA, ARAKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SASIDHARAN, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. NATESAN, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. 3. JOSEPH, SECTION FOREST OFFICER, ARAKULAM. 4. TWELVE OTHERS-UNKOWN PERSONS. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1045 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.M.P. No. 2103 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki alleging offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) and Section 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenges the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.R.P. No. 6 of 2007 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. Assailing the orders under revision, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me:- The revision petitioner is a member of the scheduled caste and accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are forest officials and others were virtually dispossessing the petitioner from his holding and committing mischief after trespassing upon the land in his CRL.M.C. NO. 1045/2008 : 2: possession and under his cultivation. Since the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also alleged in the complaint, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint much less dismiss the same after hearing. The Sessions Judge alone was competent to hear the complaint. 3. I am afraid I cannot agree with the above submissions. With regard to the jurisdiction question raised by the learned counsel, after the decision of the Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v/s State of A.P (2000 (1) KLT 609) the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of by the special court which is a court of Session only on a committal and not otherwise. Hence, a private complaint alleging any of the offences under the Special Act could be entertained only by the Magistrate. In case the Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offences under the Special Act, then of course, he would have to conduct the mandatory enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and then commit CRL.M.C. NO. 1045/2008 : 3: the case to the court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C. But here, the Magistrate was not satisfied that the petitioner had made out any of the offences alleged in the complaint and was dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, the Magistrate was perfectly within his authority to deal with the complaint. 4. With regard to the merits of the contentions, both the courts below have found that the petitioner did not produce any reliable material to show that he is in possession of the land in question which was part of the forest land from which the forest officials were entitled under Section 60 of the Forest Act, 1960 to eject any trespasser or encroacher. He failed to establish that the property in question was possessed by him. The photo copies of the various documents produced by him were inadmissible in evidence and there was no explanation forthcoming for the non- production of their originals. Even the photo copies produced were not authenticated copies. Under these circumstances, the courts below were fully justified in holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his possession of the land in question. CRL.M.C. NO. 1045/2008 : 4: If so, it could not be said that the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC were attracted even prima facie. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C. NO. 1045/2008 : 5: