State Of M. P. vs RAM KISHNA BALOTHIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 191

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER
Versus
RAM KISHNA BALOTHIA AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal No. 1343 of 1995 with Nos. 1344-1400 of 1995 {From the Judgment and Order dated 25-3-1994 of the Madhya Pradesh High in Misc. P. No. 1748 of 1993}
Decided on 6-2-1995
Advocates appeared:
U.N. Bachawat, Senior Advocate (Ms Kitty Kumaramangalam, Y.P. Mahajan, P. Parameswaran, A.K. Srivastava, Ms Sushma Suri, Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri, Goutam Bose, Amitabh Verma, Ashok Mathur, K.M. Shukla, P.K. Manohar, Kartar Singh, M.S. Dahiya, S.K. Chaturvedi, C.S. Ashri, S.S. Sharma, A.K. Sanghi, B.P. Singh and B.S. Banthia, Advocates, with him) for the appearing parties.

Headnote:
Constitution Of India - Article 226 - Articles 14 and 21 - Article 17 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 - Section 18 - Section 438 - Section 2 - Section 3(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Section 9 - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 438 - Challenged Constitutional Validity Of Certain Provisions - These appeals by special leave have been filed by State of Madhya Pradesh and another against judgment and order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is common judgment governing all these appeals - In petitions which were filed by respondents here, before High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of Constitution, respondents had challenged constitutional validity of certain provisions - High Court, while negativing this challenge in respect of some of sections of Act has, however, held that Section 18 of said Act is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - Present appeals have been filed by State of Madhya Pradesh to challenge finding of Madhya Pradesh High Court – Held, Looking to historical background relating to practice of untouchability and social attitudes which lead to commission of such offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is justification for an apprehension that if benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation - Offences are enumerated under Section 3 are offences which, to say least, denigrate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in eyes of society and prevent them from leading a life of dignity and self-respect - In premises, Section 18 of said Act cannot be considered as violative - Appeal Allowed.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document primarily discusses the constitutional validity of provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and related procedural aspects, especially regarding anticipatory bail and the specific provisions of the Act. It does not directly address the accountability of a public servant to register a First Information Report (FIR).

However, based on general legal principles and constitutional mandates, a public servant, especially those in law enforcement, has a constitutional and legal obligation to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is reported to them. Under the constitutional framework, particularly Articles 14 and 21, every individual has the right to equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to seek legal remedy and justice. The obligation to register an FIR is also reinforced by statutory provisions and directives that mandate police authorities to register FIRs upon receiving information about cognizable offences.

Failure of a public servant or police officer to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is reported can be challenged as a violation of constitutional rights and statutory duties. Such inaction can be subject to judicial review and appropriate legal remedies, including directions from courts to the authorities to perform their statutory functions.

In summary, a public servant, especially in law enforcement, is accountable under the law to register an FIR when presented with credible information regarding a cognizable offence, ensuring the protection of victims' rights and the enforcement of the rule of law.

JUDGMENT

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.- Special leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and another against the judgment and order dated 25-3-1994 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is the common judgment governing all these appeals. In the petitions which were filed by the respondents here, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution, the respondents had challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court, while negativing this challenge in respect of some of the sections of the said Act has, however, held that Section 18 of the said Act is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The present appeals have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh to challenge the finding of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in respect of Section 18 of the said Act.

3. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as follows:

"Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.- Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

4. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest. It provides, inter alia, that when any person has reason to apprehend that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or to a Court of Session for a direction that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. We have to consider whether the denial of this right to apply for anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be considered as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

5. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was enacted in order to prevent the commission of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to provide for special courts for the trial of offence under the said Act as also to provide for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of such offences. Atrocity has been defined under Section 2 of the said Act to mean an offence punishable under Section 3(1). Section 3(1) provides as follows:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

(i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance;

(ii) acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood;

(iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity;

(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred;

(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water;

(vi) compels or entices a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do begar or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government;

(vii) forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular cand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document