THE STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusMELVIN SOHLANGPIAW

                        [2020] 4 S.C.R. 501                              501


                  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA                                 A
                                  v.
                    MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW
         (Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No.1218 of 2018)
                       FEBRUARY 11, 2020                                 B
              [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
                AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
       Constitution of India: Sixth Schedule, Paragraph 4 and 5 –
Respondent, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was tried for
                                                                         C
murder of victim-deceased who also belonged to Khasi Scheduled
Tribe – Charge- sheet filed against respondent under ss.302 and
201 IPC and case committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge
– Respondent filed petition for transfer of the case to the Court of
Judge, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council – High Court
allowed the petition – Hence the instant special leave petition –        D
Whether the criminal case against the Respondent is exclusively
triable by the District Council Court, having regard to the scheme
and language of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution – Held: In exercise of powers under paragraph 4(4)
of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the United Khasi-Jaintia
                                                                         E
Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953
were adopted – r.9 provided for the constitution of one District
Council Court for the Khasi Hills Autonomous District and for the
appointment of judges thereto – In exercise of such powers under
r.9 and paragraph 5(1) of the Sixth Schedule, a notification was
published on 07.02.2017, by which the Governor of Meghalaya              F
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 – Under
                                                                         G
paragraph 5(1), the Governor is invested with the power to confer
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 C.P.C. as he deems appropriate,
for the trial of certain suits, cases, and offences – The conferral of
powers under the Cr.P.C. in certain instances, as was done by            H
                                 501
502            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     notification dated 07.02.2017 made 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 – Admittedly,
      the victim and the Respondent-accused both belonged to the Khasi
      Scheduled Tribe – Upon a combined reading of paragraphs 4 and
B
      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
C     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
D            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
E     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
F     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; 509-
      B-D]
G            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
H     Courts to exclusively try suits and cases where all parties thereto
  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW                          503


belong to Scheduled Tribes within such areas. This, however,            A
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
                                                                        B
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        C
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
                                                                        D
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; 510-
A-C]
       2.1 Paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule contemplates the “trial      E
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          F
‘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][510-
E, G]
                                                                        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
                                                                        H
504            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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
E     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
F
      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
G     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
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
      Petition (Criminal) No. 1218 of 2018.
H
  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW                                505


     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2017 of the High Court           A
of Meghalaya, Shillong in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2017.
       Ranjan Mukherjee, Upendra Mishra, Avijit Mani Tripathi, K.V.
Kharlyngdoh, T.K. Nayak, P.S. Negi, Ms. Sruti Ram (Kochar), Chetan
Joshi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
     Ms. Liz Mathew, Navneet R., Ms. Sonali Jain, Advs. for the               B
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
       1. The Respondent herein, a member of the Khasi Scheduled              C
Tribe, was being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) before the Sessions Judge,
Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District. Briefly, the case set up by the
prosecution is that a dead body was found lying on the Nondein river
bank on 26.03.2017, pursuant to which the Officer in Charge of Police         D
Station, Nongstoin (‘Complainant’) was informed and an FIR was
registered by him. Upon investigation, the identity of the deceased person
was known, who was also found to be a member of the Khasi Scheduled
Tribe. With the use of a SIM card recovered from her body, the last calls
made using her number were traced to the Respondent herein (accused).
Consequently, the accused was arrested and he voluntarily lead the police     E
to the spot where he had buried the dead body. On 31.08.2017, a
chargesheet was filed against him under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. On
08.11.2017, the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions
Judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District and the accused was
summoned to appear before it.                                                 F
       However, on the basis that the parties to the instant case are both
tribals and thus, the case is exclusively triable by the District Council
Court, the accused preferred a petition for transfer of the said case to
the Court of Judge, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2017, the High Court of
                                                                              G
Meghalaya, Shillong allowed this petition. The instant SLP has been filed
against this order of the High Court.
       2. At the very outset, it is important to note that the area where
the alleged offence is said to have occurred, West Khasi Hills District, is
a notified autonomous district included in the table appended to paragraph
                                                                              H
506            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     20 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India (‘the Constitution’),
      which deals with the administration of tribal areas in the States of Assam,
      Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Specifically, the aspect of judicial
      dispensation in such areas is dealt with under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
      6th Schedule to the Constitution as follows:
B           4. Administration of justice in autonomous districts and
            autonomous regions.—(1) The Regional Council for an
            autonomous region in respect of areas within such region and the
            District Council for an autonomous district in respect of areas
            within the district other than those which are under the authority
            of the Regional Councils, if any, within the district may constitute
C           village councils or courts for the trial of suits and cases between
            the parties all of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes within such
            areas, other than suits and cases to which the provisions of sub-
            paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of this Schedule apply, to the exclusion
            of any court in the State, and may appoint suitable persons to be
D           members of such village councils or presiding officers of such
            courts, and may also appoint such officers as may be necessary
            for the administration of the laws made under paragraph 3 of this
            Schedule…
            …(4) A Regional Council or District Council, as the case may be,
E           may with the previous approval of the Governor make rules
            regulating—
            (a) the constitution of village councils and courts and the powers
            to be exercised by them under this paragraph;
            (b) the procedure to be followed by village councils or courts in
F           the trial of suits and cases under sub-paragraph (1) of this
            paragraph;
            (c) the procedure to be followed by the Regional or District Council
            or any court constituted by such Council in appeals and other
            proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph;
G
            (d) the enforcement of decisions and orders of such councils and
            courts;
            (e) all other ancillary matters for the carrying out of the provisions
            of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph.
H                                       xxx
  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW                                 507
          [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

      5. Conferment of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure,               A
      1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 , on the
      Regional and District Councils and on certain courts and
      officers for the trial of certain suits, cases and offences.—
      (1) The Governor may, for the trial of suits or cases arising out of
      any law in force in any autonomous district or region being a law
                                                                               B
      specified in that behalf by the Governor, or for the trial of offences
      punishable with death, transportation for life, or imprisonment for
      a term of not less than five years under the Indian Penal Code or
      under any other law for the time being applicable to such district
      or region, confer on the District Council or the Regional Council
      having authority over such district or region or on courts constituted   C
      by such District Council or on any officer appointed in that behalf
      by the Governor, such powers under the Code of Civil Procedure,
      1908, or, as the case may be, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
      1898, as he deems appropriate, and thereupon the said Council,
      court or officer shall try the suits, cases or offences in exercise of
                                                                               D
      the powers so conferred.
                                                      (emphasis supplied)
       3. Relying on these provisions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
urged that under paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution, all
of the parties to a suit or case must necessarily belong to Scheduled          E
Tribes within such areas, for the District Council Court to have exclusive
jurisdiction over such suits or cases. Given that a criminal case is always
prosecuted by the State, he submitted that the instant case against the
Respondent cannot be said to be a dispute between two tribals, as the
deceased is not and cannot be a party to such a case. He also urged that
the Complainant, i.e. the Officer in Charge at the Police Station, can         F
also not be considered a party to the case, as he was acting in his official
capacity and thus forms part of the State machinery.
      4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-accused
emphasized that a combined reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 6th
Schedule to the Constitution indicates a special dispensation for the          G
adjudication of disputes in tribal areas, that must be given effect. Where
the Governor exercises his power under paragraph 5(1) and entrusts the
Courts set up by a District Council with the trial of certain kinds of
offences, such Courts must have exclusive jurisdiction. In this regard,
learned Counsel drew our attention to the notification dated 07.02.2017,       H
508             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     vide which the Governor of Meghalaya conferred the judge of the
      Additional District Council Court, Shillong, with the 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 under any other
      law applicable in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council for the
      time being. In light of this, she submitted that the jurisdiction of the case
B
      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, (2012) 1
      Gauhati Law Reports 812 in this regard.
             5. Upon considering the material on record and the arguments
C     advanced by the parties, the central issue that arises for our consideration
      is whether the criminal case against the Respondent is exclusively triable
      by the District Council Court, having regard to the scheme and language
      of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution.
             6. Before we delve into the provisions of the 6th Schedule, it is to
D     be noted that 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 (‘Cr.P.C.’). 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
E     power to extend the operation of the Cr.P.C. to tribal areas as follows:
            “Section 1.     Short title, extent and commencement.
            (1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
            (2) It extends to the whole of India
F           Provided that the provisions of this Code, other than those relating
            to Chapters VIII, X and XI thereof, shall not apply—
            (a) to the State of Nagaland,
            (b) to the tribal areas,
G           but the concerned State Government may, by notification, apply
            such provisions or any of them to the whole or part of the State of
            Nagaland or such tribal areas, as the case may be, with such
            supplemental, incidental or consequential modifications, as may
            be specified in the notification.

H
  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW                                   509
          [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

       Explanation.— In this section, “tribal areas” means the territories       A
       which immediately before the 21st day of January, 1972, were
       included in the tribal areas of Assam, as referred to in paragraph
       20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, other than those within
       the local limits of the municipality of Shillong.
       As seen above, the expression “tribal areas” occurring in Section         B
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 the three
chapters referred above, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable
to the tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya, including the Khasi Hills
District.                                                                        C

       Here, it would be useful to note that that Chapter VIII of the
Cr.P.C. deals with security for keeping peace and for good behaviour,
Chapter X deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility, and
Chapter XI deals with preventive action of the Police. Evidently, none of
these subjects falling under Chapter VIII, X and XI are relevant for the         D
purpose of deciding this matter. Trial before the Court of Sessions falls
under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C, which does not apply to the tribal
areas in question.
       7. Under the 6th Schedule to the Constitution, Paragraphs 4 and 5
deal with the administration of justice in Autonomous Districts and              E
Autonomous Regions referred to in paragraph 2 of the 6th Schedule. As
mentioned supra, 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             F
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 Code of Civil Procedure (‘C.P.C.’) as the Governor deems
appropriate. Further, paragraph 4(4) stipulates that Courts set up by the        G
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.

                                                                                 H
510             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A            8. 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. Rule 9 hereunder provides for the constitution of one District
      Council Court for the Khasi Hills Autonomous District and for the
      appointment of judges thereto.
B
              In exercise of such powers under Rule 9 and paragraph 5(1) of
      the 6th Schedule, a notification was published on 07.02.2017, vide 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
C     for a term of not less than five years under the IPC or any other law
      applicable in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council.
             9. In light of such specific conferral of powers on the District
      Council Court, Shillong, the issue to be examined is whether the
      jurisdiction to try the case against the Respondent rests solely with the
D     District Council Court.
             9.1 As mentioned supra, paragraph 4 of the 6 th 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
E     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.
              9.2 In view of this, when we look to the argument raised by the
F     Petitioner that the term ‘case’ as used in paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule
      precludes criminal cases, merely because the State is the de jure
      complainant in all such cases, it appears that their interpretation suggests
      that paragraph 4 of the 6th Schedule does not comprehend trial of criminal
      cases by the District Council Court at all. This, however, is not supported
G     by the scheme of the 6th Schedule, specifically when a conjoint reading
      of paragraphs 4 and 5 is undertaken. As mentioned supra, paragraph 4
      itself refers to suits and cases to which provisions of paragraph 5(1)
      apply. Thus, to examine the content of “suits and cases” under paragraph
      4, it is first necessary to look to the content of paragraph 5(1).

H
  THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. MELVIN SOHLANGPIAW                                  511
          [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]

       9.3 Under paragraph 5(1), the Governor is invested with the power        A
to confer 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 C.P.C. as he deems
appropriate, for the trial of certain suits, cases, and offences. The
conferral of powers under the Cr.P.C. in certain instances, as has been
                                                                                B
done by the notification dated 07.02.2017 here, 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.                                                C
       9.4 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             D
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 6 th
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         E
same Scheduled Tribe.
       9.5 Thus, in our considered opinion, 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             F
parties all of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes” was in fact to the
affected party (victim/Complainant) and the accused party.
       9.6 In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the victim
and the Respondent-accused both belong to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe.
Thus, given that there is a specific notification dated 07.02.2017 that         G
confers the District Council Court with the powers under Cr.P.C. to try
certain criminal offences, we find that 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.                                                          H
512              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A            10. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any grounds to interfere
      with the judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court
      of Meghalaya inasmuch as the High Court was justified in transferring
      the criminal case against the Respondent-accused from the Court of
      Sessions Judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District to the Court of
      Judge, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong.
B
             As mentioned supra, on 08.11.2017, the case against the accused
      was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nongstoin,
      West Khasi Hills District and he was summoned to appear before it. In
      view of the same, we now direct the transferee Court, i.e. the District
      Council Court to issue fresh summons to the accused, if he has not
C     already entered appearance, and to proceed with the trial after framing
      of charges in accordance with law. Furthermore, given that the incident
      in question occurred in March, 2017, the District Council Court is directed
      to complete the trial and decide the matter on merits as early as possible,
      but not later than one year from the date of this order. With such
D     observations, the instant Special Leave Petition is disposed of.


      Devika Gujral                                                SLP disposed of.



E




F




G




H