The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 14-A of the 1989 Act provides for the maintainability of an appeal against any judgment, sentence, or order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law, thereby excluding the general provision for bail under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - I.A. No. of 2019 :

This is an application filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today for conversion of the BLAPL to CRLA.

2. Registry is directed to register the I.A.

3. Heard Miss Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Cousel for the State of Odisha and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.

4. The bail application has been filed as vide order dated 07.02.2019 passed in Special G.R. Case No.60 of 2018, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Puri rejected the bail application filed by the petitioner.

5. When the matter was taken up on 20.03.2019, learned counsel appearing for the informant raised a preliminary objection that in view of section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter'1989 Act') as amended by Amendment Act, 2015, this bail application is not maintainable, rather an appeal is maintainable. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time to prepare and address on the maintainability point.

6. Section 14-A of the 1989 Act reads as follows

"14-A. 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 Exculsive 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."

7. This provision came into force w.e.f. 26.01.2016. In view of Sub-section (1)of section 14-A of 1989 Act which commences with a non obstante clause, an appeal is maintainable against any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

8. Similarly Sub-section (2) of section 14-A which also starts with a non obstante clause and overrides the provision of seeking leave of the High Court in case of appeal against acquittal as provided under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 further indicates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

9. The matter was considered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in case of In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 vs. Nil reported in 2018 CLJ 5010 (FB) , wherein it is held as follows 12. Thus, it is clear from section 14-A that it brings out certain radical changes in the challenge procedure as originally envisaged under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1989 Act"). It principally creates an appellate forum at the level of the High Court to challenge any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, including an order refusing or granting bail. In this sense, section 14-A makes a significant departure from the original 1989 Act inas