The State of Meghalaya vs Melvin Sohlangpiaw

5 of the Sixth Schedule, such District Council Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such a case – High Court was justified in transferring the criminal case against the Respondent-accused from the Court of Sessions Judge to the Autonomous District Council – The transferee Court, i.e. the District Council Court directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law – United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 – r.9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302,

201. Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Sessions Court before which the

Respondent was facing trial is a court established and functioning under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Notably, sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the Code has no application to tribal areas. At the same time, it gives the State Government the power to extend the operation of the Cr.P.C. to tribal areas. The expression “tribal areas” occurring in Section 1 of the Cr.P.C. refers to the areas indicated in the Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. In the absence of a notification by the State Government extending the Cr.P.C. to such areas, except chapters VIII, X and XI, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya, including the Khasi Hills District. Trial before the Court of Sessions falls under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. which does not apply to the tribal areas in question. [Para 6][508-D-E; 509B-D]

1.2 Under the 6th Schedule to the Constitution, Paragraphs

4 and 5 deal with the administration of justice in Autonomous Districts and Autonomous Regions referred to in paragraph 2 of the 6th Schedule. Paragraph 4(1) accords the District Council or Regional Council, as the case may be, with the power to constitute Courts to exclusively try suits and cases where all parties thereto belong to Scheduled Tribes within such areas. This, however, does not apply to those suits and cases that are covered by paragraph 5(1) of the 6th Schedule, wherein the Governor may confer on the District or Regional Council, or the courts set up by a District Council, or on any officer appointed by the Governor in that behalf, such powers under the Cr.P.C. or the CPC as the Governor deems appropriate. Further, paragraph 4(4) stipulates that Courts set up by the District Council are to function in accordance with the procedure evolved by the rules made by the District Council or Regional Council, as the case may be. In the instant case, in exercise of powers under paragraph 4(4) of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution, the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 were adopted. In exercise of powers under Rule 9 and paragraph 5(1) of the 6th Schedule, notification was published on 07.02.2017, by which the Governor of Meghalaya appointed an Additional Judge to the District Council Court, Shillong and conferred her with powers for the trial of offences punishable with death, transportation for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than five years under the IPC or any other law applicable in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council. [Paras 7-10][509-E-H; 510A-C]

2.1 Paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule contemplates the “trial of suits and cases between the parties all of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes” to the exclusion of any other Court in the State. Though the expression “suits and cases” has not been defined in Article 366 of the Constitution, the Cr.P.C., or the C.P.C., in common legal parlance developed over the years, the expression ‘suit’ is used to connote legal proceedings of a purely civil nature, while the term ‘case’ is used to connote either a civil suit or a criminal proceeding. Paragraph 4 itself refers to suits and cases to which provisions of paragraph 5(1) apply. [Paras 9.1, 9.2][510E, G]

2.2 The conferral of powers under the Cr.P.C. in certain instances, as has been done by notification dated 07.02.2017 makes it amply clear that the District Council Court has jurisdiction to entertain criminal cases, notwithstanding the fact that the State is the de jure Complainant in such cases and cannot be considered as a tribal party. In fact, it is reflective of an intention to ascribe a broad meaning to the term ‘case’ under paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule. Such a reading of the term ‘cases’ is also substantiated by the fact that paragraph 5 only empowers the Governor to make the Cr.P.C. applicable to those cases where the punishment for the offence is not less than five years under the IPC. By necessary implication then, the Governor is not authorized to invest any of the bodies mentioned in paragraph 5(1) with the powers under Cr.P.C. for offences where the punishment is less than five years. Reading paragraph 5 in conjunction with paragraph 4 inevitably leads to the conclusion that all such criminal cases are triable by the Courts constituted under paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule, irrespective of the fact that de jure Complainant is the State, as long as both the accused and the victim of the offence belong to the same Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the term “case” does not preclude criminal cases merely because the State is a party to such cases. Upon a close reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 to the 6th Schedule, it becomes clear that the reference to “suits and cases between the parties all of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes” was in fact to the affected party (victim/Complainant) and the accused party. It is an admitted position that the victim and the Respondent-accused both belong to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe. Thus, given that there is specific notification dated 07.02.2017 that confers the District Council Court with the powers under Cr.P.C. to try certain criminal offences, such conferral should be given effect. In fact, upon a combined reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 6th Schedule, such District Council Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such a case. The High Court was justified in transferring the criminal case against the Respondent-accused from the Court of Sessions Judge to Autonomous District Council. The transferee Court, i.e. the District Council Court is directed to proceed with the trial after framing of charges in accordance with law. [Paras 9.3-9.6, 10][511-B-H; 512-A-C]

Longsan Khongngain v. State of Meghalaya, (2012) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 812 – referred to