This, we hold also in light of our finding that the word "order" as occurring in sub-section(1) of Section 14A would also include intermediate orders."
In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI (Supra), Honble Apex Court in
para 21 has specifically stated referring the judgement of
Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 4 SCC 551
that taking cognizance of an offence and summoning the
accused is intermediate order, thus impugned summoning order
dated 16.02.2022 is an intermediate order.
Now it is to be seen whether Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. lies
against the impugned summoning order dated 16.02.2022 or
appeal will lie under Section 14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
Relevant portion of Section 14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act. are
quoted below for ready reference:
"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."From the perusal of provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, it is clear that an Appeal shall lie from any judgement, cognizance order, order not being interlocutory order of Special Court, or an exclusive SpecialCourt to the High Court, both on facts and on law."
Full Bench of this Court in Re: Provision of Section 14a of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 while
answering question B has specifically stated- "we hold also in
light of our finding that the word "order" as occurring in subsection(1) of Section 14A would also include intermediate
orders.
Thus if any intermediate order is passed by Special Court or an
exclusive Special Court in case relating to an offence in the
S.C./S.T. Act, that will come in the category of order as
provided under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act against which
only an appeal shall lie before the High Court, both on facts and
on law.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed against
summoning order dated 16.02.2022 passed by Learned II
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Lakhimpur Kheri.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2763 of 2022
Applicant :- Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.
Lko. And Others
Author: Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
Applicants have filed this application with following prayers:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned charge-sheet and summoning order dated
16-2-2022, passed by Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri summoning the applicants to face
trial vide Special Sessions Trial No. 93/2022, Crime No. 314/2020, U/s
323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) द, ध of the Act, Police Station- Neemgaon,
District- Lakhimpur Kheri, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2 to this
application.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the entire criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in the court
of Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Lakhimpur Kheri vide Special Sessions Trial No. 93/2022, Crime No. 314/
2020, U/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) द, ध of the Act, Police Station-
Neemgaon, District- Lakhimpur Kheri in pursuance of the impugned
charge sheet and summoning order, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2 to
this application.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a direction commanding the concerned court below to decide the bail
application of the applicants providing them the benefit of the legal
proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported case
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another,
2021(4) Crimes 139 (S.C.)."
In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, three
Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made following
observations in para nos. 21, 22 and 23:
"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final
order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle
that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when
reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby
resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come
to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an
accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are
interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and
summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the
proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her
favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect
of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or
her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a
certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another
way, the proceedings would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in
K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed
challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was
said :
It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not
whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath
v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v.
State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The
feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it
would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on
such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged
in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised
by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution
proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard,
the order was revisable."
23. We may note that in different cases, different expressions are used for
the same category of orders-sometimes it is called an intermediate order,
sometimes a quasi-final order and sometimes it is called an order that is a
matter of moment. Our preference is for the expression "intermediate
order" since that brings out the nature of the order more explicitly."
From the perusal of the prayer made by applicants, it is clear
that applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order
dated 16.02.2022 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, which reads as
follows:
"16.02.2022-
{Vernaculars omitted}
In Re: Provision of Section 14a of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, full Bench of this Court has
held as follows:
"B. Whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 14-A of the
Amending Act, a petition under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India or a revision under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
maintainable. OR in other words, whether by virtue of Section 14-A of the
Amending Act, the powers of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution or its revisional powers or the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. stand ousted?
We therefore answer Question (B) by holding that while the constitutional
and inherent powers of this Court are not "ousted" by Section 14A, they
cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie
under Section 14A. Insofar as the powers of the Court with respect to the
revisional jurisdiction is concerned, we find that the provisions of Section
397 Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions
made in Section 14A. This, we hold also in light of our finding that the
word "order" as occurring in sub-section(1) of Section 14A would also
include intermediate orders."
In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI (Supra), Honble Apex Court in
para 21 has specifically stated referring the judgement of
Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 4 SCC 551
that taking cognizance of an offence and summoning the
accused is intermediate order, thus impugned summoning order
dated 16.02.2022 is an intermediate order.
Now it is to be seen whether Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. lies
against the impugned summoning order dated 16.02.2022 or
appeal will lie under Section 14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
Relevant portion of Section 14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act. are
quoted below for ready reference:
"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."From the perusal of provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, it is
clear that an Appeal shall lie from any judgement, cognizance order, order
not being interlocutory order of Special Court, or an exclusive Special
Court to the High Court, both on facts and on law."
Full Bench of this Court in Re: Provision of Section 14a of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 while
answering question B has specifically stated- "we hold also in
light of our finding that the word "order" as occurring in subsection(
1) of Section 14A would also include intermediate
orders.
Thus if any intermediate order is passed by Special Court or an
exclusive Special Court in case relating to an offence in the
S.C./S.T. Act, that will come in the category of order as
provided under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act against which
only an appeal shall lie before the High Court, both on facts and
on law.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed against
summoning order dated 16.02.2022 passed by Learned II
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Lakhimpur Kheri.
Perusal of prayer further reveals that prayer has also been made
to issue a direction commanding the court below to decide the
bail application of the applicants providing them the benefit of
the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the reported case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.
In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
issued guidelines to trial courts and High Courts to keep them
in mind while considering the bail applications. A copy of the
aforesaid judgment was also ordered to be circulated to the
Registrars of different High Courts to be further circulated to
the trial courts so that necessary bail matters do not come up
before Hon'ble Apex Court. Relevant portion of Satender
Kumar Antil (supra) is quoted as under:-
"5. The trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid
guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been
put by the learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in
the investigation non appeared before the investigating officers, nor
answered summons when the courts feels that judicial custody of the
accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further
investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid
approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.
10. A copy of this order be circulated to the Registrars of the different
High Courts to be further circulated to the trial courts so that the
necessary bail matters do not come up to this Court."
During the course of arguments, Advocates complained that
Districts Courts do not follow dictum of Satender Kumar Antil
(supra) unless specifically directed by the High Court. This is a
sorry state of affair. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) is law of land and is
binding upon all courts in India.
Hence, there is no need to issue a direction to the trial court
concerned to decide the bail application applying the legal
proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
reported case Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
However, it would be appropriate that a copy of this order be
sent to the Registrar General of Allahabad High Court, who if
required may issue circular to all the courts in the State of Uttar
Pradesh under subordination of High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the
observation that applicants are permitted to file fresh petition
before the appropriate forcum.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022
No comments:
Post a Comment