JUDGMENT

Pramath Patnaik, J. - By Court Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeI, Bokaro in SC/ST Case No. 01 of 2017 arising out of Bermo P.S. Case No. 202 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1310 of 2014, wherein, the learned Court below has been pleased to dismiss the application on the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to discharge of the appellant in SC/ST Case No. 01 of 2017.

3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on a complaint, filed by the complainant, one Mahendra Rajak in Complaint Case No. 385 of 2014, which was converted into F.I.R. on 12.11.2014, on the basis of the said F.I.R., the criminal case was set on.

4. The allegation, as has been projected in the F.I.R. is that the complainant was a contract labour and the appellant was the Secretary of the United Coal Workers Union of Swang Washery and in the year 1992, an industrial dispute case was filed being Reference Case No. 58 of 1992 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Dhanbad for regularization of contract workers and on 03.10.1996, an Award was passed in favour of the workers. In the year 2010, 142 out of 324 contract labourers were regularized and one Laxman Mahto with the connivance and collusion of the appellant, Suresh Kumar Sharma, could manage to get a job in the CCL, since the year 2010, impersonating in the name of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the case has been instituted against the appellant and after investigation of the case, chargesheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the I.P.C. alongwith the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has been submitted on 25.11.2016 against the appellant alongwith other accused persons. When the matter is pending, an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bokaro in SC/ST Case No.01 of 2017, which has been rejected vide order dated-07.06.2017, which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of hearing has submitted that since the amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has come into effect from 26th January, 2016 in view of the Notification dated 18th January, 2016 of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the amended provision, namely, Section 3 (i) (za) (E) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is not be applicable to the appellant. Since the cause of action for initiation of this Criminal Case arose on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. on 12.11.2014, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has misdirected itself, while adjudicating the matter as to whether the appellant would be prosecuted under Section 3 (i) (za) (E) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 or not? In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Asharfi-Vs.-State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 742 , wherein, the Hon''ble Apex Court in categorical and unambiguous terms, has been pleased to hold that the unamended Sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is applicable as the occurrence was prior to the date of amendment. In the instant case, admittedly, the occurrence took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the charge under Section 3 (i) (za) (E) o