An order rejecting a discharge application under the SC/ST Act is not interlocutory and is appealable under Section 14A, clarifying prior legal interpretations.

ORDER :

1. This Revision is filed against the order dated 28.02.2025 in Crl. M.P 2987/2022 in SC No.879/2017 by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offence under SC/ST (PoA), 1989, Ernakulam. It is an order dismissing the application under 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC)/250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ). The prayer of the petitioner to discharge is rejected by the Special Judge. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed.

2. When this revision came up for consideration, this Court requested the counsel for the petitioner to argue about the maintainability of the revision, in the light of Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989'). This Court also appointed Adv. K.R.Vinod as Amicus curiae in this case to help the court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the Amicus curiae.

4. Adv. Vinod, who is appointed as the amicus curiae, submitted that no revision is maintainable because it is an order which is appealable under Sec.14A of the Act 1989. The counsel relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Yadav @ Salu v. State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Home Lko in Crl. Appeal No. 2174 of 2024. The Amicus curiae also takes me through the judgment of this Court in Pareeth and others v. State of Kerala and Anr. /b>. 2021 KHC 131, Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others , 2022 Legal Eagle (ALD) 807 and In Re: Provision of Section 14a of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 & Ors. 2018 Cri. L.J. 5010. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the appeal is the remedy against an order dismissing an application for discharge.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner, amicus curiae and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the impugned order is an order passed in a discharge petition. Section 14A of the Act 1989 deals with appeals. It will be better to extract Section 14A of the Act, 1989.

“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 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.”

6. A reading of Sec. 14A(1) would show 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 and on law. Therefore, an appeal under Sec. 14A is maintainable against the judgment, sentence or order. But the order should not be an interlocutory order.

7. The question to be decided is whether an order dismissing a discharge application is an interlocutory order and whether a revision is maintainable. It is a settled position that an order rejecting an a