Kerala High Court
N. Xavier Raj vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.REV.PET NO. 595 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:45580
"CR"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 595 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN SC
NO.879 OF 2017 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA)
ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
N. XAVIER RAJ
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. A.M. NICHOLAS, HIG.4.12.TNHB, COLONY VIA,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, THOOTHUKKUDY, TAMILNADU, PIN -
628002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SRI.P.A.HARISH
SMT.SHILPA K.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
CRL.REV.PET NO. 595 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:45580
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682504
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 595 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:45580
"CR"
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 595 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This Revision is filed against the order dated 28.02.2025 in Crl.
M.P 2987/2022 in SC No.879/2017 by the Special Judge for the Trial of
Offence under SC/ST (PoA), 1989, Ernakulam. It is an order dismissing
the application under 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
Cr.PC)/250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The
prayer of the petitioner to discharge is rejected by the Special Judge.
Aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed.
2. When this revision came up for consideration, this Court
requested the counsel for the petitioner to argue about the
maintainability of the revision, in the light of Sec. 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
2025:KER:45580
short 'Act, 1989'). This Court also appointed Adv. K.R.Vinod as Amicus
curiae in this case to help the court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Public Prosecutor and the Amicus curiae.
4. Adv. Vinod, who is appointed as the amicus curiae,
submitted that no revision is maintainable because it is an order which
is appealable under Sec.14A of the Act 1989. The counsel relied on the
judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shailendra
Yadav @ Salu v. State of UP through Prin. Secy. Home Lko
[Crl.Appeal No. 2174 of 2024]. The Amicus curiae also takes me
through the judgment of this Court in Pareeth and others v. State of
Kerala and Anr. [2021 KHC 131], Ghulam Rasool Khan and others
v. State of UP and others [2022 Legal Eagle (ALD) 807] and In Re
Provision of Section 14a of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 & ors [2018 CrLJ 5010]. The Public Prosecutor
also submitted that the appeal is the remedy against an order
dismissing an application for discharge.
2025:KER:45580
5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner,
amicus curiae and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the impugned
order is an order passed in a discharge petition. Section 14A of the Act
1989 deals with appeals. It will be better to extract Section 14A of the
Act, 1989.
"14A. 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
2025:KER:45580
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. A reading of Sec. 14A(1) would show that notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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. Therefore, an appeal under
Sec. 14A is maintainable against the judgment, sentence or order. But
the order should not be an interlocutory order.
7. The question to be decided is whether an order dismissing
a discharge application is an interlocutory order and whether a revision
is maintainable. It is a settled position that an order rejecting an
application for discharge is not strictly an interlocutory order, and hence
it can be challenged by filing an appeal. The Apex Court in Sanjay
Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [2021 KHC 6274]
observed like this:
2025:KER:45580
15. "The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye
(supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge
are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not
affected by the bar of S.397 (2) of Cr.P.C. That apart, this Court in
the above - cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the
High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of
process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and
circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that
the High Court, while exercising its afore - stated jurisdiction ought
to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be
invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely
administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless,
does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there
should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which
there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For
example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported
material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent
person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse
of process of law." (Underline supplied)
8. From the above authoritative judgment and other judgments
of the Apex Court, it is clear that an order passed in a discharge
petition is not an interlocutory order, and it is an intermediate order. If
that is the case, there is no doubt that an appeal is maintainable under
2025:KER:45580
Sec.14A of the Act, 1989. When a statutory appeal is maintainable
against an order, this Court need not entertain a revision against that
order invoking the powers under Secs. 438 and 442 of the BNSS.
9. Moreover, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in In
Re Provision of Sec. 14a SC/ST Act's case (supra) considered this
matter in detail. Relevant paragraphs in the above judgment are
extracted hereunder:
" 91. Turning to the provisions of S.397 Cr.P.C., we find that
the 1989 Act, both in terms of S.14 - A as well as S.20
overrides the Cr.P.C. This is the evident and manifest
legislative intent. The revisional jurisdiction would therefore
clearly stand eclipsed and ousted by S.14 - A.
92. We therefore answer Question (B) by holding that while
the constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not
"ousted" by S.14 - A, they cannot be invoked in cases and
2025:KER:45580
situations where an appeal would lie under S.14 - A. Insofar as
the powers of the Court with respect to the revisional jurisdiction
is concerned, we find that the provisions of S.397, Cr.P.C.
stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions
made in S.14 - A. This, we hold also in light of our finding that
the word "order" as occurring in sub-section(1) of S.14 - A
would also include intermediate orders.
10. Moreover, this Court in Pareeth's case (supra), observed
like this :
"3. Similarly, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court
had the opportunity to consider the constitutional validity of
S.14A of the Act in the decision In re: Provisions of 14A of the
SC - ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, 2018
CrlLJ 5010, and held that while the constitutional and inherent
powers of this Court are not "ousted" by S.14A, they cannot
be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal
would lie under S.14A. Insofar as the powers of
2025:KER:45580
the Court with respect to the revisional jurisdiction is
concerned, it was found that the provisions of S.397, Cr.P.C.
stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions made
in S.14A.
4. In Ravindra Thakur and Another v. State of Bihar (2017
KHC 4880 : 2017 CriLJ 4050) a Division Bench of the Patna High
Court has held that by virtue of amendment of S.14 of the Act, the
accused has been given right to file an appeal before the High Court
against an order of refusing bail of the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court, at the same time an appeal shall lie also
against an order of granting bail by the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court, at the instance of any aggrieved person.
In the instant case, the accused had applied for bail before the
Special Court, and the same was rejected. The only remedy
available to him is to file an appeal under S.14A(2) of the Act.
Hence, the objection raised by the Registry is perfectly justified and
therefore upheld."
11. Similarly, this Court in Swapna v. State of Kerala [2022
KHC 5489] observed like this :
"10. I am in full agreement with the principles laid down in Sindhu
Gopalakrishnan - s case (supra). As mentioned above, it was
categorically observed by this Court that the order passed in that case
was not interlocutory in nature, as the decision on the prayers sought
for by the petitioner was likely to affect the rights and liabilities of the
2025:KER:45580
parties, at the final stage of proceedings. In such circumstances, the
said order cannot be treated as an interlocutory order, on the other
hand, it would be an intermediary order which is distinct from the
interlocutory order but not a final order. S.14A (1) of SC ST Act is pari
materia with S.397 (2) of Cr.P.C and principles laid down in the said
judgment are squarely applicable to these cases as well. As per
S.14A(1), what is prohibited is only an appeal against an interlocutory
order. In this case decision of potency test is something which will
have substantial impact upon the prosecution case or defense case as
the case may be, at the final stage of the proceedings and therefore
under no circumstances it can be treated as a mere interlocutory order.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent against the maintainability
of the appeals is without any merit and hence rejected. "
12. In the light of the above decisions, it is clear that if an order
which is not an interlocutory order is passed by a Special Judge under
the Act, 1989, it is appealable as per Sec.14A of the Act 1989. The
order rejecting an application for discharge is not an interlocutory order.
11. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable. The counsel for
the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to file an appeal. The
liberty is granted. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of, granting
liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing an
2025:KER:45580
appeal under Sec.14 A of the Act, 1989.
The Registry will forthwith return the certified copy of the
impugned order to the counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
