1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.96/2007 Acharya Girdhar Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th November, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Anil Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor. .... REPORTABLE This petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to challenge the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner declining to take cognizance relating to offences punishable under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”) being not a “Human Rights Court” or a court specified or constituted as a special court for such offences under any other law. While assailing validity of the order aforesaid learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that though the Sessions Court, Bikaner is not specified as a human rights court as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1993, however, being specified as a special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act it possess jurisdiction to adjudicate the offences arising out of violation of human rights in light of proviso to Section 30 of the Act of 1993. 2 Heard. Section 30 of the Act of 1993 reads as follows:- “30.Human Rights Courts.--For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if-- (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or (b) a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force.” As per provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1993, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government is required to specify for each district a Court of Session to be a “Human Rights Court”, and by its proviso a Court of Session already specified or constituted as a special court for “such offences” under any other law for the time being in 3 force, to adjudicate the offences relating to violation of human rights. As such a Session Court may have jurisdiction to adjudicate the offences arising out of violation of human rights, if, that is specified or constituted for “such offences” under any other law for the time being in force. The term “such offences” is quite important to examine real implication and effect of the proviso to Section 30. The Act of 1993 was enacted by the parliament with an object to ensure better protection of human rights and, thus, it provides for creation of National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts. Under the Act of 1993 the term “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The principle idea for creating special courts under the Act of 1993 is to provide a forum to adjudicate offences relating to human rights expeditiously and by proviso to Section 30, with a view to avoid multiplicity of courts, the Session Courts those are otherwise specified or constituted as special courts to deal with similar type of offences are also empowered to act as Human Rights Courts. Meaning thereby, that if any special court is 4 specified or constituted to ensure and protect rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual under any other law for the time being in force, then as per proviso to Section 30, it may act as a Human Rights Courts. The intention of the legislature by the term “such offences” is only for the offences having nature of violation of human rights, otherwise there would have been no need to use that term in the statute. If the intention of the legislature was to empower every specified or constituted special court as a Human Rights Courts, then the proviso to Section 30 of the Act of 1993 could have been framed as follows:- “Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if-- (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or (b) a special court is already constituted, under any other law for the time being in force.” The legislature consciously and with a specific purpose used the term “such offences”, which means the offences relating to human rights, hence, if in any other law for the time being in force a Session Court is specified or constituted to adjudicate the offences similar to human rights offences, then only such Session Court can adjudicate the offences 5 relating to human rights as specified under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act of 1993. A court specified or constituted as special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be treated as a special court specified or constituted for “such offences” as referred under the Act of 1993. The Sessions Court, Bikaner was not at all specified or constituted to deal with for the offences analogous to the human rights offences, thus, the proviso to Section 30 of the Act of 1993 was rightly not operated in the instant matter. In view of it, no error was committed by the Sessions Court, Bikaner while declining to take cognizance for the offences under the Act of 1993 vide order dated 24.4.2002 being not having jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.