Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Bhushan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
1. Chandra Bhushan, son of Shri Vinay Kumar Yadav, aged about 31
years, presently posted as Manager (Retail Sales) of the Ranchi 3
Retail Sales Area under the Ranchi Divisional Office of the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited and having his office at Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Kunal Kishore @ Kunal Kishori, son of Shri Rajendra Prasad, aged
about 31 years, presently posted as Manager (Retail Sales) of the
Tatanagar 1 Retail Sales Area under the Ranchi Divisional Office of the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and having his office at Namkum, P.O.
& P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi ... Appellants
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sarju Paswan, son of Late Shibu Paswan, resident of 15-A, Adityapur
Jaiprakash Udyan, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District- Saraikella-
Kharswan ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate
-----
08/28.10.2024 Let the present criminal appeal be detached from Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.847 of 2023 as in both the criminal appeal, there are different FIRs.
2. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned counsel counsel along with Mr. Rahul
Lamba, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned
counsel for the State and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
3. I.A. No.8807 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay of 303
days in filing the present criminal appeal and I.A. No.1736 of 2024 has been
filed for ignoring the defect, as pointed out by the office.
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
4. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that there is delay of 303 days in filing the present criminal appeal,
which is arising under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the appellants had
earlier preferred Cr.M.P. No.4632 of 2022 challenging the order taking
cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding, however, the said
Cr.M.P. was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 24.08.2023
saying that the said Cr.M.P. is not maintainable in light of Section 14-A of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 as there is provision of appeal. He submits that thereafter the present
criminal appeal has been preferred and in view of that, such delay has
occurred. He further submits that proviso of Section 14-A has been struck
down by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others ,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 975 and in this background, the delay
may kindly be condoned as for civil wrong, if any, the complaint case has
been registered. In this background, he submits that the limitation petition
may kindly be allowed.
5. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State submits that the
delay is there, however, she is not disputing that the appellants had earlier
moved before this Court in the said Cr.M.P., which was dismissed as not
maintainable in light of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She is further not disputing with
regard to the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
appellants that the provision of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been struck down
by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
6. Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the
prayer of condonation and he submits that the appellants has wrongly filed
the said Cr.M.P., which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability,
however, liberty was not provided to the appellants. He further submits that
so far as the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is
concerned, that is being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which,
notice has been issued even on the stay matter. On these grounds, he
submits that the delay may not be condoned and the limitation petition may
kindly be rejected.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that it
is an admitted position that the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court has struck down the proviso of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Ghulam
Rasool Khan (supra). It was pointed out by the learned counsel for
respondent no.2 that the stay petition is being examined by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and notice has been issued. It is admitted position that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the order of the Full Bench of the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as yet and only notice has been issued.
8. The High Court is required to decide the case on the existing law even
if the matter is referred to the larger Bench, as has been held by the
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of India and
others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and others ,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140. Till the order of the Full Bench of
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reversed, that order is existing today.
9. It is further well settled that the order of any Full Bench of any
constitutional Court is binding upon other High Courts, as has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2005) 2 SCC
673. Thus, the objection of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 with
regard to dismissal of the limitation petition is not being accepted by this
Court.
10. It is also an admitted position that the appellants had earlier moved
before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.4632 of 2022, which was dismissed on
24.08.2023 holding that the said Cr.M.P. is not maintainable in light of the
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
11. It is further well known that if a wrong forum is chosen by any of the
party, the period of that can be condoned and no litigant can be deprived of
remedyless. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another , reported in (2004) 6 SCC
254. Paragraph 22 of the said judgment reads as under:
"22. The Court must have the requisite territorial
jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning
the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim
or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
(2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have
effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to
the applicability of the Act."
12. In view of the above background, this Court finds that sufficient cause
is made out to condone the delay and, as such, the delay of 303 days in
filing the present criminal appeal is, hereby, condoned.
13. Accordingly, I.A. No.8807 of 2023 is disposed of.
14. In view of allowing of the condonation petition, I.A. No.1736 of 2024
meant for ignoring the defect, has become infructuous and, as such, I.A.
No.1736 of 2024 is disposed of as infructuous.
15. Let this appeal be placed after Deepawali vacation.
16. Office will proceed further as per the procedure.
17. It is open to the learned counsel for respondent no.2 to come prepare
on the merits of the case.
18. Till the next date, interim order granted earlier shall remain in force.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2023
