Summary
The Supreme Court upheld transfer of a murder prosecution in an autonomous district to the Khasi Hills District Council Court. Both the accused and victim belonged to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, and a specific Governor’s notification conferred powers to try the relevant serious offences. The State’s formal role as prosecutor did not exclude criminal cases from the Sixth Schedule’s special judicial framework.
Issues
- Whether the State’s formal status as prosecutor prevented exclusive District Council Court jurisdiction where victim and accused were Khasi tribals and the requisite trial powers had been conferred.
Provisions considered
- Sixth Schedule, paragraphs 4(1) and 5(1), Constitution of IndiaRead together, these provisions covered the criminal case and gave effect to the Governor’s specific conferral of trial powers. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6)
- Section 1(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court considered the territorial exception and absence of an extension notification in assessing ordinary Sessions Court jurisdiction. (¶ 6)
Held
- The expression cases in the Sixth Schedule encompasses criminal proceedings. Treating the State’s formal prosecutorial role as decisive would frustrate the express provision for conferring criminal trial powers on Council Courts. The relevant parties for this purpose were the affected victim or complainant and the accused. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5)
- Both victim and accused were admittedly Khasi tribals. The Governor’s notification of 7 February 2017 conferred the necessary powers over serious offences on the District Council Court; the constitutional framework and notification therefore required exclusive trial there in this case. (¶¶ 8, 9.6)
- The ordinary Sessions-trial provisions did not apply to the tribal area in question without the relevant extension; the generally applicable preventive chapters did not decide trial jurisdiction here. (¶ 6)
Result
Special leave petition disposed of; transfer to the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court upheld. Transferee Court directed to issue fresh summons if the accused had not appeared, frame charges and proceed according to law, completing trial as early as possible and within one year of the order.