Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38057)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8045 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8045 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38057) on 12 September, 2024

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2024:RJ-JD:38057]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1268/2023

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Pema Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Kaladeh, Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Avin Chahangani
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

12/09/2024

1. By the impugned order dated 19.07.2023, the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Rajsamand has rejected the prayer of

the petitioner/informant for a direction for further investigation of

the case. By the same order, the learned Special Judge asked the

petitioner to file a protest petition, if so desired. The learned

Special Judge has thoroughly considered the material collected

during investigation of the case for conclusion by the police that it

is not a fit case wherein anyone should be sent up for trial.

2. The aforesaid order was passed in FIR No.312/2021,

registered with Bhim Police Station, Rajsamand for offences under

Section 143, 341, 447, 427 IPC as well as 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.

3. On the date the impugned order was passed, the statutory

provisions of Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act was there, which reads as follows:-

[2024:RJ-JD:38057] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1268/2023]

Appeals.-

"14A. (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."

4. Evidently the impugned order is not an interlocutory order. If

it would have been passed in favour of the petitioner, the

proceeding would have continued and if it was passed in faour of

the accused, the proceeding would have finally culminated.

Therefore, an appeal was maintainable against the impugned

order.

5. Moreover, the learned Special Judge has allowed liberty to

the petitioner to file protest petition, therefore, no harm is going

[2024:RJ-JD:38057] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1268/2023]

to be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. Hence, this

criminal revision stands dismissed as not maintainable. The

petitioner may file protest petition within two weeks.