Do special courts take away magistrate's power to hold trial? What Kerala High Court said

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a magistrate court does not lose jurisdiction to conduct criminal trials simply because a special court exists for speedy trial in such cases.

However, single-judge Justice PG Ajithkumar held that when special courts have been created for the speedy disposal of certain kinds of cases, propriety demands that such offences be tried by such special courts.

The Court was hearing a case in which a judgment rendered by a magistrate court was set aside by a sessions court on the sole ground that a children's court was notified under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection for Child Rights Act, 2005 (Child Rights Act) before the magistrate pronounced his judgment.

"The Magistrate who held trial in these cases, is the forum competent ordinarily to try such offences. For the purpose of speedy trial only, the children's courts were specified. By such notification, jurisdiction was conferred upon the children’s court in respect of offences against children or of violation of child rights. It cannot be said as result of such an interdiction, jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try the offences was taken away. But propriety demands that such offence should be tried by the children's courts," the Court said in its November 14 order.

Moreover, the Court also noted that if the trial court judgement is set aside, the same would result in a second trial in the case. It noted that a retrial would leave a devastating effect of causing inordinate delay in the conclusion of the proceedings.

Therefore, the High Court quashed the judgment passed by sessions court which had set aside a trial court judgement convicting a man for sexually assaulting children aged around 10 years in the year 2007.

The sessions court had held that the magistrate court lacked the jurisdiction to hold the trial due to the existence of a children's court which had specifically been notified as the court to try such offences.

The sessions court had remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial in the case.

However, the High Court upheld the trial court order and set aside the sessions court order.

Advocates S Rajeev and KK Dheerendrakrishnan represented the petitioners (victims).

Public Prosecutor Noushad KA with advocates PA Harish and VV Surendran represented the State and the accused man AK Haridasan.

[Read Order]