The Orissa High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice A.K. Mohapatra ruled that the appeal is maintainable against the order taking cognizance and issuing a summons as its intermediary order. (Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.)The bench stated that “the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person is not clearly an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order. Therefore, the same is appealable in view of the provisions contained under Section 14-A (1) of S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.”
Facts of the case
The appellant filed the appeal under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act, challenging the order dated 12.04.2021 whereby the Special Court had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/294/34, IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act and issuing summons to the accused persons.
Section 14-A(1) of the Act reads, "14A. Appeal: (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 the Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law."
Issue before the Court ;
Whether the order passed by the Special Court taking cognizance under the provisions of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and issuing summons therein is an 'interlocutory' order and hence, not appealable to the High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the Act?
Courts Observation and order
The bench at the very outset remarked, "The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. Stae of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused persons and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue."
The bench observed, "In view of the aforesaid analysis of law, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person is not clearly an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order. Therefore, the same is appealable in view of the provisions contained under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.
So far ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court does not agree with such a proposition of law. The power conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is inherent power. Therefore, the same by no stretch of imagination can be construed that the same is to be guided and controlled by the provisions of any statute. While saying so, this Court is also aware of the proposition of law that when a statute provides for a specific remedy i.e. when an alternative remedy is provided the parties are required to exhaust the said remedy first."
In the present case under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act provides for a statutory appeal against the order passed by the learned Special Court, which is not interlocutory in nature. Since the impugned order passed in the present case is an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order, the Court was of the considered view that the same is appealable under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.
In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by the Court, the present appeal was found maintainable.
Read Judgmemt;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments