The court emphasized that orders taken cognizance of serious offences must be reasoned to meet justice standards, underscoring constitutional rights involved.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2026 Annexure A16 order dated 18.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2196/2022 on the files of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended in 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018’ for short) cases, Nedumangad, is put under challenge by filing this criminal appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018. The sole accused in the above case is the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Even though many grounds are urged in the appeal memorandum to unsustain the order impugned, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the insufficiency of the order passed without any reasons for taking cognizance against the appellant, on finding that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST(PoA) Act, 2018. It is argued further that the impugned order was passed taking cognizance even without discussing or taking a decision on the final report filed in the form of ‘Further Action Dropped’ (FAD). Therefore, the order would require interference.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, who is the defacto complainant at present in this case, argued that, even though the order impugned is not in the form of an exhaustive one, prima facie satisfaction of the court in commission of the offences under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 by the appellant could be seen therefrom and therefore, the order need not be interfered. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent opposed interference in the order impugned.

According to him, the impugned order was passed after recording statements of 5 witnesses, produced by the respondent, to substantiate, prima facie, the commission of offences under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 by the accused.

5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that one of the prayers in the petition is to declare the 2^nd proviso to Section 14A (3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018, as amended by Amendment Act of 2018, as unconstitutional. In fact, the said prayer has become infructuous, since in the decision in Noushad V.T.K. V. State of Kerala, reported in 2023 (6) KHC 172, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring 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) held that, once a statutory provision is struck down by a High Court which has the effect throughout the territory of India, (3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018, now declared as unconstitutional. Therefore, the said prayer need not be considered. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that, in this matter, protest complaint was filed by the de facto complainant in the year 2022 prior to the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for short) and in the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan reported in 2025 KHC 6370, the Apex Court interpreted Section 531 of the and held in paragraph 30 as under:

"30. In view of the provisions of S.531 of the BNSS , the Cr.PC stands repealed; yet, pending proceedings are to be continued under the repealed law. We, therefore, decline Mr.Raju's prayer. However, liberty to seek sanction under the CrPC, if so advised, is reserved.”

Therefore, insofar as the present proceedings before the Special Court pertaining to this case are concerned, the Special Court is bound to follow the provision