Sanjay Krushna Katkar vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Bharati Dangre, N.J.Jamadar, JJ.
Sanjay Krushna Katkar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 949 & 603, 740 741 OF 2022, Cri-Interim Application No.3315 of 2022 In Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Sanjeev Kadam with Mr.P.P.Raul, Mr.Mayur G.Sanap and Mr.Siddharth Karpe
For the Respondent:Mr. Yash Naik with Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad and Mr. Atharva R.B., Advocates, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mrs. A.S. Pai, Public, Prosecutor and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Anil V. Singh, Additonal Solicitor General of India with Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Ashish Chavan, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr.Rohit Lalwani, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Abhishek Bhadang, Mr.Pranav Thakur and Ms. Ismita Thakur, Advocates

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19 (1)(d) and (e) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A – Rights - ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ – Offences – Whether any act defined under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; can be an offence outside that State or Union Territory – Held, Court would be committing serious flaw in adopting too narrow and pedantic construction, which would stultify intent of a special law and impede its implementation - Court must be conscious of laudable object of Act, to attain the constitutional goal and this can only be achieved, when rights of ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ are protected and not permitted to be abstruse - By restricting identity of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only in relation to State of his origin, would even defeat their fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(d) and (e) of Constitution, as it would indirectly require them to be bound to their State of origin, with no chance of taking steps to progress themselves by stepping outside - This definitely would cause more harm to the identified class than advancing them to compete with members of higher class and assisting them in achieving equality, as enshrined in Constitution – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. By order dated 28.11.2022, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) formulated two issues arising before him, to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and requested for constitution of a Bench of two or more Judges to decide the same.

2. The issues are eloquently set out in the order dated 28.11.2022, as under:

“A. If a person belongs to a caste or a tribe which is declared by notification as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a particular State or Union Territory, but not in other parts of the country, then whether any act defined under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; can be an offence outside that State or Union Territory.

B. The Appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be decided by a Single Judge Bench or by a Division Bench and whether such Appeals would fall within any of the clauses (a) to (i) of Rule 2(II) (Criminal) of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.”

3. We would proffer to pronounce on the Issue No.(B) ahead of issue formulated as Issue No.(A), as the said issue is more facile and not much debated.

ISSUE NO.B

“WHETHER AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 14-A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 CAN BE DECIDED BY SINGLE JUDGE OR WHETHER IT REQUIRES HEARING BY THE DIVISION BENCH”

4. The second issue, as regards whether the Appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “The Atrocities Act”), should be decided by the Single Bench or a Division Bench, was also referred to a larger Bench by the Division Bench of this Court (A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.) on 10.11.2022 while hearing Cri. Appeal No. 949 of 2022 in case of Sanjay Krushna Katkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

5. The Division Bench was unable to agree with the view expressed by another Division Bench/Co-ordinate Bench at Nagpur in Cri. Appeal No. 193 of 2018 in case of Gulabrao Marotrao Ulhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, which, after referring to Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 had recorded its findings as under:

“The conduct of business rule in respect of criminal matters clearly makes out two categories of matters to be dealt with by the Single Judge and by the Division Bench. In terms of clause (a) above, all the appeals against - (1) convictions, except in which the sentence of death or imprisonment for life has been passed and (2) acquittals in respect of the offences which are punishable for imprisonment of not exceeding ten years and fine are triable by the Single Judge. Rest all the appeals are required to be decided by the Division Bench.”

6. Since the Division Bench in Sanjay Katkar (supra) was not agreeable to the said proposition and for the following reasons recorded in the order dated 10.11.2022, it followed the course of making over the issue to a Larger Bench, as it was of the opinion that all Appeals pertaining to bail at pretrial stage, involving offences under the Atrocities Act, including charges punishable with life imprisonment or death, should be heard by the learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the elaborate order reads thus:

“7) It is pertinent to note that the provisions in all the Acts referred herein above are the special statutes dealing with specific offences not covered by the Penal Code. However the Division Bench at Nagpur has not decided the issue on that basis. The Court has considered the provisions of Appellate Side Rules qua ‘conviction and sentence’ while passing the said Judgment and Order. The Division Bench has decided that all Applications in connection with bail involving provisions of SC & SC Act should be placed before the Division Bench in ac