Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Sections 193, 465, 461 and 462-Sessions Trial-Procedural irregularity-Whether a ground for de novo trial-Accused charged for offences inter alia under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-Cognizance by Court of Session, a specified court established under the Act, without the case being committed by Magistrate Conviction and sentence-Appeal by accused before High Court consequent upon a decision of Supreme Court-Plea raised by accused that without there being a committal order, trial was vitiated High Court quashing the entire trial and directing de novo trial Validity of Held, unless procedural irregularity in conduct of criminal trial has occasioned "failure of justice", It cannot be quashed-Any omission or illegality in the procedure not affecting the core of the case is not a ground for ordering de novo trial-Since the accused has failed to show that the procedural irregularity has occasioned "failure of justice", High Court was not justified in quashing the trial and ordering de novo trial-Moreover, the law which held the field at the relevant time in the State was governed by a Full Bench decision of the High Court-Matter remitted to High Court for disposal on merits-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Section 465-"Court of competent Jurisdiction"-Determination of- Held, bar against taking cognizance of certain offence does not make a duly constituted court incompetent for all purposes-specified court under the SC/ ST Act would not cease to be a court of competent Jurisdiction: merely because of certain procedural lapse-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Words and Phrases

Expression "Court of Competent Jurisdiction":-Meaning of-In the context of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Respondent-accused were charge-sheeted for various offences including offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST) Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, a specified court under Section 14 of the Act, after a protracted trial for several years, convicted and sentenced the accused. The accused filed appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal this Court in Gangula Ashok's case held that committal proceedings were necessary for specified Court under the SC/ST Act to take congnizance of the offences to be tried. Initially the legal position which held the field in the State was the same on account of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Meerabhal's case. But the said legal position was subsequently overruled by Full Bench of the High Court in Anand Swarup's case by holding that Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to proceedings under the SC/ST Act and committal orders were not required. Thus, in view of the judgment of this Court in Gangula Ashok's case the legal position adopted by Division Bench of the High Court in Meerabhai's case got revived and the Full Bench decision in Anand Swarup's case got eclipsed. Consequently, respondents filed applications before the High Court for quashing the trial proceedings on the ground that the trial held against them by the specified Court of Session without the case being committed by a Magistrate was without any Jurisdiction. Division Bench of the High Court upholding the said contention quashed the entire trial and ordered retrial of the case. Hence the present appeal by the State.

Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court.