IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal under Section 14-A of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable against orders passed by Special Court except against interlocutory orders.

ORDER

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. The present criminal appeal is being taken up for hearing in question of the maintainability.

3. A report attached to the criminal appeal dated 02.12.2021 by the Stamp Reporter reveals that this criminal appeal files under Section 14-A(2) of S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 may not lie to the Hon’ble Court as impugned order of taking cognizance has been passed on 12.04.2021.

4. Heard Mr. S. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing for the State.

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present criminal appeal against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed in C.T. Case No.144 of 2020 by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC/ST, POA Act), Cuttack taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons for appearance is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 14-A of the S.C and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. He further submits that S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 being a special statute shall over ride the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid context. He further submits that the appellant has rightly filed the appeal against the order dated 12.04.2021 taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the F.I.R. under Section 14-A of the S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 which provides for appeal against the orders passed by the learned Special Courts under the said Act. Section 14-A of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 Sub-section(1) of Section 14-A which is relevant for the purpose of the present case is quoted herein below:—

[“14-A. Appeal : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminbal 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 the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.”

6. A bare reading of Sub-section 14-A of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989, it appears that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure 1973, 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 an on law. Therefore, there is no doubt that judgment, sentence and orders passed by the learned Special Court under the provisions of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 are all appealable and the appeal shall die before the High Court both for facts as well as law. However, Sub-section (1) of Section 14 provides a right to appeal so far orders passed by the learned Special Court are concerned. Appeal under Section 14-A is maintainable against the orders passed by the learned Special Court except against the interlocutory orders. Therefore, there is no ambiguity with regard to the maintainability of appeals against the orders passed by the Special Courts under the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989.

7. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 12.04.2021 whereunder the learned Special Court has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/294/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. Moreover, on being satisfied with the materials available on record, learned Special Court while taking cognizance of the alleged offences has directed for issuance of summons to the accused persons directing them to appear on 20.04.2021 to answer the charges.

8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the present appeal is maintainable relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and others vrs. State of U.P. Upon a careful perusal of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant it appears that the Allahabad High Court in the above referred case was required to consider whether an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging an