Will Appeal be Filed Under CrPC/BNSS or SC/ST Act, If Accused Was Tried for Offence Under IPC and SC-ST Act Both but Convicted Under IPC Only? Allahabad HC Refers Issue to Larger Bench

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant legal development, has referred a crucial question of law to a larger bench concerning the proper appellate procedure when a person is tried for offences under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) but is convicted only under the IPC. The case in question revolves around the criminal appeals filed by appellants Shailendra Yadav alias Salu and Abhisek alias Abhishek Yadav alias Putan, who were tried for offences under both the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

Legal Issues Involved:

The central issue in these appeals is the determination of the appropriate legal route for filing an appeal when the accused is tried for offenses under both the IPC and the SC/ST Act but is ultimately convicted only under the IPC. The appellants were convicted under Sections 308 and 504 of the IPC by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow, and acquitted of the charges under the SC/ST Act. The appellants filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), challenging the judgment of conviction under the IPC. However, a preliminary objection was raised by the Additional Government Advocate, arguing that the appeals should have been filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, as the judgment was delivered by a Special Court constituted under the Act.

Court’s Decision:

The court observed a conflict between the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the general provisions of the CrPC, particularly concerning the appellate remedy available to an accused who has been acquitted of charges under the SC/ST Act but convicted under the IPC. The appellants’ counsel argued that since the appellants were acquitted of charges under the SC/ST Act, the appeal should be maintainable under the CrPC. In contrast, the Additional Government Advocate maintained that the SC/ST Act, being a special legislation, has an overriding effect, and therefore, the appeal should be filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

After extensive arguments and considering relevant precedents, including the Division Bench decision in the case of Teja vs. State of U.P. Justice Abdul Moin noted that the issue raised is of considerable legal significance and merits examination by a larger bench. The court observed that the non-obstante clause in Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act indicates that an appeal under the Act shall lie notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC.

Important Observations:

The court highlighted that the SC/ST Act is a special legislation with the purpose of providing speedy trials and specific provisions for the trial of offenses against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court also noted that when a special act like the SC/ST Act provides for a specific appellate procedure, it may override the general provisions of the CrPC.

The court quoted the observation, “The non-obstante clause with which Section 14-A(1) of the Act, 1989 starts indicates that this would be the only remedy available to a person aggrieved against any judgment, sentence, or order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court passed under the provisions of Act, 1989.”

Referral to Larger Bench:

Given the conflicting views and the importance of the legal question involved, the court has referred the following questions to a larger bench:

1. What would be the remedy available to a person who has been acquitted of the offenses under the SC/ST Act but convicted for offenses under the IPC? Should the appeal be filed under the CrPC or the SC/ST Act when the judgment is by a Special Court?

2. Whether the Division Bench’s decision in the Teja case was correctly held that an appeal under the CrPC is maintainable in such circumstances?

The court has requested the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge to constitute a larger bench at the earliest to address these questions, as similar appeals continue to arise.

Also Read

Case Details:

– Case Title: Shailendra Yadav @ Salu vs. State Of U.P and Abhisek @ Abhishek Yadav @ Putan vs. State Of U.P.

– Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2174 and 2179 of 2024

– Bench: Justice Abdul Moin

– Appellants’ Counsel: Sri Eshan Kumar Gupta

– Respondent’s Counsel: Sri Anurag Verma (Additional Government Advocate) and Sri Ajit Singh (State Counsel)

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles