Bombay High Court
Vijay Pundlik Sapkale And Anr vs Varsha Adesh Pradhan And Ors on 3 September, 2024
k 1/4 25 cri ia 1325.24 in apeal 136.21 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1325 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.136 OF 2021
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.136 OF 2021
Vijay Pundlik Sapkale & Anr. ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Vijay Pundlik Sapkale & Anr. ....Appellants
V/S
Varsha Aadesh Pradhan & Ors. ....Respondents
________
Mr. Altaf Khan a/w Mr. Akash Mangalgi and Mr. Mohan Chavan for the
Appellants/Applicants.
Ms. Yugandhara Khanwilkar appointed advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 4.
Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for Respondent No.5/State.
__________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 3 SEPTEMBER 2024.
P.C.:
1 The Interim Application is filed seeking directions for video
recording of the proceedings while deciding the Criminal Appeal filed by
the Applicants.
2 The Application is opposed by Ms. Khanwilkar, the learned counsel
appointed by the Court to represent Respondent Nos.1 to 4. She would
submit that the Criminal Appeal cannot be termed as proceedings relating
to offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
k 2/4 25 cri ia 1325.24 in apeal 136.21 as.doc
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) since no offence has yet been
registered. Ms. Khanwilkar would therefore submit that it is only when an
offence under the SC & ST Act is registered that any proceedings relating to
those offences would become part of sub-section 10 of section 15A of the
SC & ST Act.
3 On the contrary Mr. Altaf Khan would rely upon judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors. vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Another in Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2019
decided on 13 March 2024.
4 In Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja (supra) the learned Single Judge of this
Court had referred following four issues for determination by the Division
Bench:
"(1) Whether proceeding under 15A(10) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would
amount to a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section 2(i)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
(2) Whether it would be necessary to video record any proceeding
relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, especially when the proceedings are held in
open court, as contemplated under section 327 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and what would be the objective to be
achieved?
(3) Whether hearing of a bail application under section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section
15A of the said Act?
(4) Whether section 15A (10) of the said Act could be implemented in
the absence of rules framed under the Act or formulation of a
scheme for implementation?
k 3/4 25 cri ia 1325.24 in apeal 136.21 as.doc
5 The Division Bench has answered the issues in paragraph 34 of the
judgment as follows:
"34. In view of this discussion, the questions referred to us are answered
as follows:
(1) The 'proceedings' under Section 14-A(10) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would
cover all proceedings including a 'judicial proceeding' as
contemplated under section 2(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
(2) It would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 even though the proceedings are held in open court.
The object to be achieved is effective implementation of the
Amended Chapter IV-A of the Atrocities Act, which is meant to
protect the rights of victims and witnesses.
(3) Hearing of a bail application under section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
a 'judicial proceeding' as contemplated under section 15-A of the
Atrocities Act.
(4) Section 15-A (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be implemented in the
absence of rules framed under the Act or formulation of a scheme
for implementation."
6 Thus the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja
(supra) has held that it would be necessary to video record any proceeding
relating to SC & ST Act. Since the Division Bench of this Court has held
that "any proceeding" relating to the SC & ST Act need to be video
recorded, in my view, even a proceeding seeking registration of FIR would
be covered by the expression 'any proceeding' used by Division Bench in
paragraph 34(2) of the judgment in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja (supra). In that
view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct video recording hearing
k 4/4 25 cri ia 1325.24 in apeal 136.21 as.doc
of the Criminal Appeal considering the ratio laid down by Division Bench
of this Court in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja (supra).
7 Interim Application is accordingly allowed. The proceeding relating
to Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2021 are directed to be video recorded as
provided under section 15-A(10) of the SC & ST Act.
8 With the above directions, the Interim Application is disposed of.
9 List the Criminal Appeal for further consideration on 25 September
2024.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2024.09.04
14:25:26 +0530
