Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 4 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1112 of 2023
Sanjeev Kumar Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite Parties
.....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate
: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate
.....
Order No.02 Dated- 04.07.2023
1. Heard the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the
stamp reporter dated 06.04.2023 to the effect that as this criminal
miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order
dated 21.09.2022 and order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge -SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhanbad in connection with
SC/ST Case No. 83 of 2021 and the order is older than 180 days i.e.
maximum statutory provision provided under Section 14 A(3) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the
criminal miscellaneous petition is not maintainable, be overruled.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said
case vide order dated 21.09.2022 non-bailable warrant of arrest was
issued against the petitioner and vide order dated 01.03.2023, the
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. It is next submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the orders are
interlocutory orders and are not covered by Section 14 A of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. In support of his contention that the order by which proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued is an interlocutory order, the learned counsel
for the petitioner relies upon the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1246 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021. It is next submitted
that since the said two orders are interlocutory orders and Section 14 A of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is not attracted, so obviously the limitation envisaged under Section
14 A(3) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 will also be not attracted. Hence, it is submitted that
the said order of the stamp reporter be overruled.
5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through
the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 14 A of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
which reads as under:-
14-A. Appeals. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a
Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on
facts and on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal
shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred
within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence
or order appealed from:
Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry
of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of
ninety days:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of
the period of one hundred and eighty days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date
of admission of the appeal.
6. It is crystal clear from Section 14 A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 that the same
envisages filing of an appeal from any judgment, sentence or order
passed by a special court or an exclusive special court constituted under
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989; which are not interlocutory orders. The exceptional interlocutory
orders has been provided in Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; regarding the order
granting or refusing bail.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, without any doubt, the order by
which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused
person is an interlocutory order and the order by which the proclamation
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is also an interlocutory order.
Under such circumstances, appeals under Section 14A of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not lie
against the order dated 21.09.2022 or for that matter the order dated
01.03.2023. The limitation which has been provided for in Section 14 A(3)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is applicable to only the appeals as envisaged under Section 14
A (1) & (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8. As already been observed by this Court that appeal will not lie against
the order dated 21.09.2022 or 01.03.2023, despite the fact that the same has
been passed by the Special Judge appointed under the provisions of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. Hence, the limitation envisaged under section 14A(3) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
will not be applicable to this case. Therefore the report of the stamp
reporter dated 06.04.2023 is overruled.
9. Registry is directed to furnish complete stamp reporting within a week.
10. List this criminal miscellaneous petition thereafter.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AFR-Sonu-Gunjan/-
