# Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. 168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-28
- **Case number:** Crl. Appeal No. 1000 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Saurabh Lavania, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghulam-rasool-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-168-indian-law-reports-allahabad-48873
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Special Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - inherent
power , Section 439 - Special powers of
High Court or Court of Session regarding
bail - The Schedule Castes And The
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )
Act , 1989 - Section 14 A - Reference -
Administrative side - Appeals .

Appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A of
1989 Act - delay of 180 days - cognizance by
court below - appellants summoned to face trial
- bailable warrants issued against appellants -
matter referred by Single Judge to a larger
bench.(Para - 2)

(B) Special Law - Question refered -
conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of
the Act, 1989 into a bail application by
exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by single judge
- held - answered in negative - Rohit Vs State
of U.P. and another, (2017) 6 ALJ 754 has been
overruled by Full Bench of this Court in In Re :
Provision of section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, (2018) 6
ALJ 631. (Para -17)

(C) Special Law - Question refered - an
aggrieved person having two remedies
available of preferring an appeal under the
provisions of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989
as well as a bail application under the
provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. -
held - answered in negative - an aggrieved
person will not have two remedies namely, i.e.
filing an appeal under Section 14A of the 1989
Act as well as filing a bail application in terms of
Section 439 Cr.P.C.. (Para -17)

(D) Special Law - Question refered - an
aggrieved person not availed remedy of an
appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A
of Act, 1989 can be allowed to approach the
High Court by preferring an application
under the provisions of Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. - held - answered in negative - aggrieved
person having remedy of appeal under Section
14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. (Para -17)

(E) Special Law - Question refered -
remedy available to an aggrieved person
who has failed to avail the remedy of
appeal under the provision of Act, 1989
and the time period for availing the said
remedy has also lapsed - held - no limitation
to file an appeal against an order under the
provisions of 1989 Act. Remedies can be availed
of as provided. (Para -17)

HELD:-Single Judge judgment of this Court in
Rohit's case has been overruled in In Re :
Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Hence, the
answer to the question is in negative. (Para
-
1

## Text

7 All. Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
convict/appellant is not sustainable in this
regard.

(56) So far as the contention of the
learned Counsel for the convict/appellant that
the testimonies of defense witness i.e. D.W.1
Prabhudei has wrongly been discarded by the
trial Court, is concerned, it transpires from
the record that Section 39 of Cr.P.C. deals
with the duty of the public to give
information forthwith related to commission
of certain offences if they became aware of
such commission or of the intention of any
other person to commit such offence. In
absence of any reasonable excuse, since it is
the duty of public to forthwith give
information to the nearest Magistrate or
police officer relating to the commission of
offences or of the intention of any other
person to commit any offence as specified
under section 39 of Cr.P.C., if a person takes a
plea of any reasonable excuse for not giving
such information then the burden of proving
such excuse shall lie on him. The evidence of
D.W.1-Prabhudei shows that on 07.02.2008
at 08:00 P.M., when she had gone to her
under construction house for picking up
wood, she saw a hand protruding outside a
sack and thereafter she came outside the
under construction house and made noise,
upon which Shyam Lal (P.W.1) and other
family members came there. It is not in
dispute that when D.W.1 Prabhudei saw a
hand protruding outside a sack on 07.02.2008
at 08:00 P.M., she did not inform the police in
terms of Section 39 of the Cr.P.C. but instead
in her statement, she herself had stated before
the trial Court that the police came on the
next day at 04:00 A.M. In these backgrounds,
this Court is of the view that the trial Court
has rightly disbelieved the testimony of
D.W.1 Prabhudei.

(57) Thus, from the evidence led by the
prosecution it is well established that it was
the convict/appellant, who was involved in
the present case and has murdered the
daughter of informant P.W.1-Shyam Lal. The
prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable
doubt
against
the
convict/appellant and the trial Court after
scanning the entire prosecution evidence has
rightly
convicted
and
sentenced
the
convict/appellant for the offence in question.

(58) In view of the above and for the
reasons stated hereinabove, no interference of
this Court is called for in the instant appeal as
the learned trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the convict/appellant by the
impugned judgment and order.

(59) The instant appeal on behalf of
appellant no.1- Heera Lal fails and deserves
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(60) The appellant no.1-Heera Lal, who
is in jail, shall serve the sentence as awarded
by the trial Court.

(61) Let a certified copy of this order as
well as Lower Court Record be transmitted to
the
Court
concerned
for
necessary
information and compliance forthwith.
----------

(2022)07ILR A167
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 1000 of 2018

Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellants:
---

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Prachis Pandey, Addl. Govt. Adv., Mr.
Sandeep Singh

(A) Special Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - inherent
power , Section 439 - Special powers of
High Court or Court of Session regarding
bail - The Schedule Castes And The
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )
Act , 1989 - Section 14 A - Reference -
Administrative side - Appeals .

Appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A of
1989 Act - delay of 180 days - cognizance by
court below - appellants summoned to face trial
- bailable warrants issued against appellants -
matter referred by Single Judge to a larger
bench.(Para - 2)

(B) Special Law - Question refered -
conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of
the Act, 1989 into a bail application by
exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by single judge
- held - answered in negative - Rohit Vs State
of U.P. and another, (2017) 6 ALJ 754 has been
overruled by Full Bench of this Court in In Re :
Provision of section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, (2018) 6
ALJ 631. (Para -17)

(C) Special Law - Question refered - an
aggrieved person having two remedies
available of preferring an appeal under the
provisions of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989
as well as a bail application under the
provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. -
held - answered in negative - an aggrieved
person will not have two remedies namely, i.e.
filing an appeal under Section 14A of the 1989
Act as well as filing a bail application in terms of
Section 439 Cr.P.C.. (Para -17)

(D) Special Law - Question refered - an
aggrieved person not availed remedy of an
appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A
of Act, 1989 can be allowed to approach the
High Court by preferring an application
under the provisions of Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. - held - answered in negative - aggrieved
person having remedy of appeal under Section
14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. (Para -17)

(E) Special Law - Question refered -
remedy available to an aggrieved person
who has failed to avail the remedy of
appeal under the provision of Act, 1989
and the time period for availing the said
remedy has also lapsed - held - no limitation
to file an appeal against an order under the
provisions of 1989 Act. Remedies can be availed
of as provided. (Para -17)

HELD:-Single Judge judgment of this Court in
Rohit's case has been overruled in In Re :
Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Hence, the
answer to the question is in negative. (Para
-
17 )

Criminal appeal before appropriate court.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Rohit Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,(2017) 6 ALJ 754

2. In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015,(2018) 6 ALJ 631

3. Rohit Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2017) 6 ALJ 75

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. On a reference made by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated August 3,
2018 to a larger Bench and constitution
thereof by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on
administrative side, for consideration of the
following questions, the matter has been
placed before us :

(i) Whether a Single Judge of this
Court while deciding Criminal Appeal
(Defective) No. 523/2017 In re : Rohit Vs.
State of U.P. and another vide judgment
7 All. Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
dated 29.08.2017 correctly permitted the
conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of
the Act, 1989 into a bail application by
exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

(ii) Whether keeping in view the
judgment of Rohit (supra), an aggrieved
person will have two remedies available of
preferring an appeal under the provisions of
Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 as well as a
bail application under the provisions of
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iii) Whether an aggrieved person who
has not availed of the remedy of an appeal
under the provisions of Section 14 A of Act,
1989 can be allowed to approach the High
Court by preferring an application under
the provisions of Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.?
(iv) What would be the remedy available to
an aggrieved person who has failed to avail
the remedy of appeal under the provision of
Act, 1989 and the time period for availing
the said remedy has also lapsed?

2. It is a case in which the appellants
had filed an appeal under Section 14A of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
19891
challenging
the
order
dated
September 14, 2017 vide which the learned
Court below had taken cognizance of the
matter and the appellants had been
summoned to face trial. The order dated
April 12, 2018, vide which bailable
warrants had been issued against the
appellants, was also challenged.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants
while referring to an order passed by a
Single Bench of this Court in Criminal
Appeal Defective No. 523 of 2017 titled
as Rohit Vs State of U.P. and another2
submitted that an appeal filed after expiry
of period of limitation provided under
Section 14A of the 1989 Act, can be
converted into a bail application in exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. As in the case in hand, the appeal
was filed beyond 180 days, the same
should be permitted to be converted into
bail application and dealt with accordingly.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted
that primarily all the questions, which have
been referred to be considered by Full
Bench of this Court, have been answered
by a Full Bench of this Court in In Re :
Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 20153. He further submitted that
Section 14A (3) of the 1989 Act, which
provides period of limitation for filing an
appeal and limited discretion in case of
delay, has been struck down. Meaning
thereby, an appeal against an order passed
by the Court below under the provisions of
the 1989 Act, can be filed at any time. The
judgment in Rohit's case (supra), as relied
by learned counsel for the appellants, has
specifically been overruled. This Court
cannot rewrite the provisions of law, the
same have to be interpreted as such.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper book.

6. To appreciate the arguments raised
by learned counsel for the parties with
reference to interpretation of Section 14A
of the 1989 Act, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the aforesaid Section hereunder :

"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
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

7. The aforesaid Section was inserted in
the 1989 Act vide Act No. 1 of 2016 with
effect from January 26, 2016. Sub-section
(1) thereof starts with non-obstante clause.
It provides that notwithstanding anything
contained
in
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 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 Court
concerned. Sub-section (2) thereof provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., an appeal shall
lie to this Court against an order of the
court below granting or refusing bail. Subsection (3) thereof, which again starts with
non-obstante clause, provides for a period
of ninety days to challenge any judgment,
sentence or order in appeal. However, delay
in filing the appeal can be condoned if
sufficient cause is shown. Second proviso
to sub-section (3) provides that no appeal
shall be entertained after expiry of one
hundred and eighty days. This provides for
limited condonation of delay.

Question No. (I)

Whether a Single Judge of this
Court while deciding Criminal Appeal
(Defective) No. 523/2017 In re : Rohit Vs.
State of U.P. and another vide judgment
dated 29.08.2017 correctly permitted the
conversion of appeal under Section 14A
of the Act, 1989 into a bail application by
exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

8. The aforesaid question does not
require discussion in detail for the reason
that the earlier judgment of this Court in
Rohit's case (supra) has specifically been
overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in
In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of
SC/ST
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (supra). The
relevant paragraph 109 of the aforesaid
judgment is extracted hereunder :-

"109. The proposition of a revival of
the powers of this Court either under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Sections 397 Cr.P.C.
cannot be countenanced, more so in view
of our opinion on the first question. The
view expressed by the learned Judge in
Rohit in this context to the effect that since
there is no express repeal of Section 439
Cr.P.C., the same would revive upon the
expiry of 180 days also does not commend
acceptance. The learned Judge, in our
considered view, has clearly erred in
proceeding to consider the applicability of
7 All. Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the principles of an
express or implied repeal of a provision.
What we find is an implied exclusion of the
applicability of Section 439 Cr.P.C. by a
special
statute.
We,
therefore,
find
ourselves unable to sustain the line of
reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in
Rohit that the provisions of Section 439
Cr.P.C. would remain in suspension during
the period of 180 days and thereafter revive
on its expiry. The conclusion so arrived at
cannot be sustained on any known principle
of
statutory
interpretation.
We
are
therefore, constrained to hold that both
Janardan Pandey as well as Rohit do not
lay down the correct law and must, as we
do, be overruled."

(emphasis supplied)

9. The Single Judge judgment of this
Court in Rohit's case (supra) has been
overruled in In Re : Provision of Section
14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (supra). Hence,
the answer to the question is in negative.

Question No. (II)

Whether
keeping
in
view
the
judgment of Rohit (supra), an aggrieved
person will have two remedies available of
preferring an appeal under the provisions
of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 as well as a
bail application under the provisions of
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?

10. While considering the validity of
Section 14A (2) of the 1989 Act and second
proviso to sub-section (3) thereof, the Full
Bench of this Court in In Re : Provision of
Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (supra)
found that the 1989 Act being a Special
Statute, will override the provisions of
Cr.P.C. Section 14A of the 1989 Act starts
with non-obstante clause which gives
overriding effect on anything contained in
Cr.P.C. As far as sub-section (3) thereof is
concerned, it overrides anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force.
Meaning thereby the provisions of the
Limitation Act, 19634 has also been
overridden. While dealing with the issue of
validity of Section 14A(2) of the 1989 Act,
the Full Bench of this Court in In Re :
Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act,
2015
(supra)
opined
that
the
provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. are
clearly excluded as far as its application to
the specific procedure provided in the 1989
Act is concerned. The relevant paragraphs
27, 28 and 31 are extracted hereunder :-

"27. The sole issue which ultimately
arises for consideration is whether the
provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. stand
overridden and in case the answer to this
question be in the affirmative whether in
such a situation sub-section (2) is rendered
ultra vires. Having conferred our thoughtful
consideration on the submissions advanced
in this respect, we find ourselves unable to
conclude that sub-section (2) is liable to be
declared ultra vires. At the very outset, we
cannot possibly loose sight of the fact that
the 1989 Act is a special statute and would
on
basic
principles
of
statutory
construction, override any other general
enactment
which
may
govern
the
investigation, enquiry and trial of criminal
offences. We also cannot possibly ignore
the non obstante clauses employed by the
Legislature in the substantive provisions of
Section 14A. We must also necessarily bear
in mind that Section 20 of the 1989 Act in
unambiguous
and
unequivocal
terms
provides that it would have overriding
effect over all other statutes that may
contain or prescribe a procedure to the
contrary.
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. The provisions of this special
enactment
would
also
clearly
have
overriding effect over other enactments
including the Cr.P.C. in light of Sections 4
and 5 thereof. While Section 4(2) of the
Cr.P.C. provides that all offences under any
other law are to be investigated, enquired
into, tried and otherwise dealt with in
accordance
with
its
provisions,
this
statutory
mandate
is
subject
to
the
provisions in any other enactment which
may regulate the manner of enquiring into,
trying or dealing with offences. Section 5
only preserved those enactments which
incorporated
or
embodied
specific
provisions contrary to the Code which were
in force at the time when Cr.P.C. was
promulgated. The provisions of the Cr.P.C.
therefore would apply only in a situation
where an enactment did not make any
provision for investigation, enquiry or trial
independently or where it was silent on
these aspects. The 1989 Act however erects
a comprehensive machinery for enquiry,
investigation and trials of offences under
the Act. It is therefore evident that it is the
provisions of this special enactment which
must prevail when it is found that its
provisions
prescribe
a
procedure
inconsistent with those in the Cr.P.C. The
answer to the first part of the question
formulated by us, must necessarily be in
the affirmative and we do therefore hold
that the provisions of section 439 Cr.P.C.
clearly stand eclipsed in light of the special
procedure put in place by the 1989 Act. It is
manifest
that
the
concurrent
powers
recognised as existing in the High Courts
by virtue of Section 439 Cr.P.C. stand
impliedly excluded and overridden.

xxxx
31. The decision of the Supreme Court in
Salimbhai is thus in our considered opinion
a clear and complete answer on the
exclusion of the powers of the High Court
under sections 439 and 482 Cr.P.C. insofar
as the issue of bail is concerned."

11. Thus the answer to Question
No.(II) will be in negative. An aggrieved
person will not have two remedies namely,
i.e. filing an appeal under Section 14A of
the 1989 Act as well as filing a bail
application in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Question No. (III)

Whether an aggrieved person who
has not availed of the remedy of an
appeal under the provisions of Section 14
A of Act, 1989 can be allowed to
approach the High Court by preferring
an application under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

12. The aforesaid question has been
dealt with by Full Bench of this Court in In
Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 (supra), where the question
framed was as under :

"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 (in short ''Cr.P.C.') 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 High Court under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution or its
revisional powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. shall stand ousted?"

13. The answer to the aforesaid was in
the negative. It was held that against the
judgments or orders, for which remedy has
been provided under Section 14A of the
7 All. Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
1989 Act, invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court by filing petition under Articles 226
or 227 of the Constitution of India, a
revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., will
not
be
maintainable.
The
relevant
paragraphs thereof are extracted below :-

"64. At the outset, our answer to the first
part of the question is in the negative. In other
words, where an appeal under sub-section (1)
and/or sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the
Amending Act is maintainable against any
judgment, sentence or order, not being
interluctory in nature, a petition under the
provisions of Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India or a revision under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. or a petition under
Section

xxxx

89. In our considered view, the
contention which has been urged by Sri
Sushil Shukla that the powers of the High
Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and its
revisional power under section 397/401
Cr.P.C. along with the provisions contained
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India are not ousted by the provisions of
Section 14 A of the Act of 2015 where an
appeal
has
been
provided
from
any
judgment/sentence or order not being an
interlocutory
order
of
a
Special
Court/Exclusive Special Court to the High
Court both on facts and on law is too broadly
framed so as to merit acceptance. It must be
borne in mind that the statute itself provides a
remedy to an accused against any judgment,
sentence
and
order
of
the
Special
Court/Exclusive Special Court to the High
Court. Therefore, any person, who is
aggrieved by an order of the Special
Court/Exclusive Special Court can approach
and prefer an appeal to the High Court for
redressal of his grievance and any grievance
of an accused/victim against the order of the
court below can be examined both on facts
and law by the High Court...........

xxxx

94. 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."

14. Hence, the answer to Question
No.(III) will be in negative namely, that the
aggrieved person having remedy of appeal
under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot
be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Question No. (IV)

What would be the remedy available
to an aggrieved person who has failed to
avail the remedy of appeal under the
provision of Act, 1989 and the time
period for availing the said remedy has
also lapsed?

15. In the earlier Full Bench of this
Court in In Re : Provision of Section 14
(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (supra), one of the
questions considered was with regard to
validity of second proviso to sub-section(3)
of Section 14A of the 1989 Act, which
provides limitation for condonation of
delay in filing appeals under Section 14A
of the aforesaid Act. The aforesaid proviso
was held to be ultra vires. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted below :-
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"55. ...........It has left an aggrieved
person without of remedy of even a first
appeal against any judgment, sentence or
order passed under the 1989 Act on the
expiry of 180 days. As we contemplate the
fatal consequences which would visit an
aggrieved person on the expiry of 180 days,
we shudder at the deleterious impact that it
would have and find ourselves unable to
sustain the second proviso which must
necessarily be struck down, as we do, being
in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
xxxx
62. While we reject the challenge to section
14A (2), we declare that the second proviso
to Section 14A (3) is violative of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution and it is
consequently struck down."

16. The second proviso to subsection(3) of Section14A of the 1989 Act
having been struck down by this Court in
In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of
SC/ST
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (supra), there will
be no limitation to file an appeal against an
order under the provisions of 1989 Act.
Hence, the remedies can be availed of as
provided.

17. In view of our aforesaid
discussions, the answers to the questions
referred are as under :-

(i) Question No.(I) is answered in
negative as Rohit Vs State of U.P. and
another, (2017) 6 ALJ 754 has been
overruled by Full Bench of this Court in In
Re : Provision of section 14 (a) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015, (2018) 6 ALJ 631.

(ii) Question No.(II) is answered in
negative holding that an aggrieved person
will not have two remedies namely, i.e.
filing an appeal under Section 14A of the
1989 Act as well as filing a bail application
in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(iii) Question No.(III) is answered in
negative holding that the aggrieved person
having remedy of appeal under Section
14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to
invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(iv) Question No.(IV) - There will be
no limitation to file an appeal against an
order under the provisions of 1989 Act.
Hence, the remedies can be availed of as
provided.

18. While answering the questions
referred to by the learned Single Judge, let
the present criminal appeal be now placed
before appropriate Court as per the roster
on August 11, 2022.
----------
(2022)07ILR A174
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Crl. Appel. No. 1014 of 2012

Rajesh Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sanjiv Kumar Pandey, Shabana Shabbir, Sri
Surendra Singh, Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302 & 299 - Section 300 -
Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313