Does it matter which court first took cognizance? Not here: Magistrate’s Cognizance Before Transfer To Special Court Does Not Vitiate SC/ST Act Case, the Allahabad High Court has held, since an irregular step by a Magistrate does not by itself void later proceedings before the Special Judge.
Prayagraj: A criminal appeal by three accused against a summoning order passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. A Magistrate had taken cognizance before the case was transferred to the Special Court, and that, the Court held, does not vitiate the proceedings that followed [Ajai Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Santosh Rai, sitting as a single judge, reserved the judgment on October 13, 2026 and delivered it on October 15, 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2020. The appeal was against the order of May 22, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ballia, in Complaint Case No. 65 of 2017.
Sections 460 and 461 of the CrPC
Justice Rai turned to Sections 460 and 461 of the CrPC. Section 460 lists acts done by a Magistrate erroneously but in good faith, while Section 461 lists acts done without lawful authority that render proceedings void. In the Court’s view, the first does not let a court validate everything, and the second does not make every want of empowerment fatal.
“the proceedings cannot be declared void merely on the ground of want of empowerment”
“Conversely, Section 460 cannot be invoked mechanically to validate an act falling within Section 461.”
On the facts, the Special Judge had considered the complaint and the material on record after the transfer, the Court noted. The appellants had not shown that the Special Judge lacked competence or that the earlier procedure caused any failure of justice. That the complainant and a witness had earlier been examined by the Magistrate did not invalidate the summoning order. The complaint and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 contained specific allegations, and at the summoning stage there was no need to test their truth or hold a mini-trial.
A complaint case, not an FIR
The case began as a complaint. The complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, alleged that on June 11, 2016 the accused came to his house armed with lathis and sticks, abused him with caste-based words, assaulted him and threatened him, and that his wife was abused and assaulted when she intervened. The complaint invoked Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. These are allegations only: they are untested, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the accused are presumed innocent.
An Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 of the CrPC on October 19, 2016, and his wife’s statement under Section 202 on December 14, 2016. On September 26, 2017 the District and Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, who summoned the accused on May 22, 2019.
The appellants argued that, in view of Sections 2(bd) and 14 of the Act, the Magistrate’s proceedings were contrary to law and the summoning order could not stand.
What Section 14 and Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya say
Special Courts are expressly empowered to take direct cognizance of offences under the Act by Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, as amended by Act No. 1 of 2016. In Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, decided on October 26, 2021 by Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, the Supreme Court held that this power does not oust a Magistrate’s jurisdiction to take cognizance and commit the case, noting that the word “only” is missing from the provision. It advised that Special Courts should preferably take cognizance directly, but held that cognizance by a Magistrate does not by itself vitiate the proceedings.
Dismissal and bail directions
The appeal stood dismissed. Unless already on bail, the appellants must apply for regular bail within two weeks, with no extension, and the trial court was asked to decide the application expeditiously, preferably on the same day. Should they fail to appear, the trial court may adopt appropriate coercive proceedings. The Registrar (Compliance) must communicate the order to the concerned court through the District and Sessions Judge, Ballia, within 48 hours.
What the ruling settles, and what it leaves for trial
The Supreme Court’s reading of Section 14 is applied to a case that moved from a Magistrate to a Special Court years before the point was settled. Accused persons are told that a procedural step taken in the wrong forum will not, without more, end a prosecution; they must show prejudice or a real failure of justice.
The line between curable irregularity and incurable illegality also stays in place: Section 460 cannot be used to cure everything, and Section 461 does not void everything. The trial itself remains to be held, and nothing in the ruling decides the truth of the allegations.
Case Title: Ajai Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2020]
Bench: Justice Santosh Rai, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Kameshwar Singh for the appellants; Anand Kumar Pandey, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Rajat Singh and AGA S.N. Rai for the respondents