All criminal cases are subject to trial by the Courts set out in paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule of the constitution irrespective of the facts of the case

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 2nd April 2020

The State of Meghalaya vs. Melvin Sohlangpiaw

Facts:

1. A person who belongs to Khasi Scheduled Tribe was found dead at a river bank and an FIR in that regard has been filed and upon investigation the identity of the deceased was found and the sim card obtained from the deceased contained the last called number of the respondent who is also a member of the same tribal community.
2. Charge sheet was filed against him under sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the case as committed for trail before a sessions court. As both the parties to the case are Tribal’s the case can only be dealt by District Council Court and the respondent preferred a petition for transfer of the said case and the high court of Meghalaya allowed the petition.
3. Instant SLP has been filed against the order of the High Court. The jurisdiction were the offence alleged to have happened is notified autonomous district included in the table appended to paragraph 20 of the sixth schedule to the constitution of India which deals with administration of the state of Meghalaya.
4. Relying on the provisions that for the district court to have complete jurisdiction all the parties to suit must belong to scheduled tribal area and the criminal case must always be prosecuted by the government and it was argued by the petitioner that instant case against respondent cannot be said to be dispute between two tribal’s  as the deceased cannot be a party to such case 
5. The Officer in charge of Police Department, since he was formally acting and thus is part of the State machinery, cannot be considered a party to the case.
6. However the respondent emphasized reading it combined of paragraphs 4 and 5 of 6^th schedule of the constitution of indicates a special dispensation for the adjudication of cases in tribal areas. The   jurisdiction   of   the   case   against   the Respondent   rests   exclusively   with   the   District   Council   Court. Reliance   was   also   placed   on   a   Full   Bench   decision   of   the Meghalaya High   Court in Longsan   Khongngain v.  State   of Meghalaya.

Issue:

If the criminal case against respondent is solely triable by the District Council Court, having regard to the scheme and language of paragraphs 4 and 5of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution?

Judgement:

• The respondent was brought to trial by a court established and operating under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Notably, subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Cr. P.C. Provides that there is no application of the Code to tribal areas. At the same time, it grants the State Government the power to extend the operation of the Cr. P.C.
• The term “tribal areas” used within Section 1 of the Cr. P.C. Reference is made to the areas set out in the 5th and 6th Schedule of the Constitution. In the absence of notification by the State Government of the extension of the Cr. P.C. With the exception of the three chapters referred to above, the provisions of the Cr. P.C. They are not applicable to tribal areas in the state of Meghalaya. It would be useful to note that Chapter VIII deals with security for the maintenance of peace and good behaviour, Chapter X deals with the maintenance of public order and tranquillity, and Chapter XI deals with preventive action of the police.
•  Governor of Meghalaya appointed an additional Judge under Rule 9 and paragraph 5(1) of the 6^th schedule and conferred powers for the trial of offences punishable with death transportation of life or for an offence punishable not less than 5 years under IPC or any other law while the term ‘case’ is used to connote either a civil suit or a criminal proceeding. 
• Paragraph 5 only empowers the Governor to establish the Cr. P.C. Applicable to cases where the penalty for the offense is not less than five years in accordance with the IPC. The Governor is therefore not authorized, by necessary implication, to invest any of the bodies referred to in paragraph 5(1) with powers under Cr. P.C. Reading paragraph 5 in conjunction with paragraph 4 will inevitably lead to the conclusion that all such criminal cases are subject to trial by the Courts set out in paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule, irrespective of the facts of the case.
• The word “case” does not exclude criminal prosecutions merely because the State is a party to those proceedings. It is clear from the close reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 6th Schedule that the reference to “suits and cases between the parties belonging to the Scheduled Tribes” was actually made by the party concerned and the accused party and the court didn’t found any grounds to interfere with the judgement passed by the High court of Meghalaya and disposed the instant special leave petition before Supreme Court.