Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.G. ARUN, J.
XXX – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. Filing No.1004 of 2023 (Crl. A.No.1166 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Prohibition - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 14A(3) - The court discussed the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act and its prohibition on numbering appeals filed beyond the stipulated period. The appellant argued that this provision violates the right guaranteed to victims under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The appellant referred to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court that struck down the second proviso to Section 14A(3) as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court concluded that once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court, it has effect throughout the territory of India, and therefore, the Registry cannot refuse to number the appeal based on the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was not numbered due to being filed beyond the stipulated period. The appellant argued that the prohibition in the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act violates the right guaranteed to victims under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The appellant referred to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court that struck down the second proviso to Section 14A(3) as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant also relied on the decision in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Another (2004 (6) SCC 254). The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had considered the question extensively before upholding the challenge. Once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court, it has effect throughout the territory of India. Therefore, the Registry cannot refuse to number the appeal based on the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act. The objection is overruled and the Registry is directed to number the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the argument made by the appellant and referred to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. The court concluded that once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court, it has effect throughout the territory of India. Therefore, the Registry cannot refuse to number the appeal based on the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court, it has effect throughout the territory of India.
Result: The objection is overruled and the Registry is directed to number the appeal.
ORDER :
The Criminal Appeal is not numbered since the Registry noted that the appeal is preferred beyond the period of six months stipulated in the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (In short 'the Act') .
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the prohibition in the second proviso to Section 14A(3) creates a fetter on the right guaranteed to victims, under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
3. Adv. Amal Dharsan, learned Amicus Curiae referred to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Re: Provision of S.14(a) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,2015(2018 KHC 5250) to point out that the second Proviso to Section 14A (3) has been struck down, declaring the provision to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the provision having been struck down by the High Court, it has effect through out the territory of India. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decision in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Another (2004 (6) SCC 254).
4. A reading of the Allahabad High Court judgment shows that the Full Bench had considered the question in extenso, before upholding the challenge. As rightly pointed out by the Amicus Curiae, once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court, it has effect through out the territory of India. Being so, the Registry cannot refuse to number the appeal by relying on the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act.
Hence, the objection is overruled and the Registry is directed to number the appeal. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable help rendered by the Amicus Curiae.
The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when a statutory remedy is available under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the primacy of statutory provisions in criminal p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitie....
availability of the remedy of appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 14-A of the SC and ST Act, it will not be open for the High Court to exercise the original or concurrent jurisdiction under Secti....
A second criminal appeal against the same order rejecting bail is not maintainable after an initial dismissal under Section 14(A) of the Special Act.
The victim's right to appeal is absolute and does not require leave; however, a reasonable limitation period of 90 days from judgment knowledge is suggested for filing appeals against acquittals.
The court emphasized that orders taken cognizance of serious offences must be reasoned to meet justice standards, underscoring constitutional rights involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the provisions of the POCSO Act on the provisions of the Atrocities Act in cases involving offences under both Acts, and t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
