words per minute
31
PiyushVerma1492440
00:00
Speed
AFR
Reserved
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 8 of 2018
Petitioner :- In Re Provision Of Section 14a Of Sc/St(Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act,2015
Respondent :- Nil
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suo Motto
With
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38755 of 2017
Applicant :- Satyendra & Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh,Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Pandey
With
Case :- CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 11 of 2018
Petitioner :- Vishnu Behari Tiwari
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Bihari Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- ,A.S.G.I.,G.A.,Jai Shanker Audichya
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Per [Dilip B Bhosale, CJ]
The order of reference dated 21 December 2017 in Satyendra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38755 of 2017], passed by a learned Single Judge, while dealing with three Criminal Misc. Bail Applications and a Criminal Appeal (Defective), takes a divergent view from the one expressed by another learned Single Judge in Janardan Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.2943 of 2017) and Rohit vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Defective No.523 of 2017). In all these cases, the provisions of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Amending Act") fell for consideration. Apart from the divergent opinions expressed in the above cases, on the questions centering around Section 14A of the Amending Act, we have also taken suo moto cognizance of the issues arising therefrom in Criminal PIL No. 8 of 2018. We had accordingly clubbed the aforementioned two matters together.
In the meanwhile Sri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari, a practicing Advocate of this Court preferred Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. - 11 of 2018 challenging the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 14A. By way of an amendment an additional challenge was raised in respect of the second proviso to Section 14A (3) of the Amending Act Both these provisions were challenged on the ground of being unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This petition was tagged with the present reference and notices were duly issued to the Attorney General of India. The learned ASG has appeared on his behalf as well as the Union of India in these proceedings.
It would be advantageous to firstly reproduce the questions that are framed in the reference order which occasioned constitution of a Larger Bench initially. The questions framed in the reference order dated 21 December 2017, read thus:
"(i) Whether in matters of offences committed before 26.1.2016, from which date amending Act no.1 of 2016 inserting/adding provisions of appeal against orders B.
C. Whether upon the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of an appeal as specified in the second proviso to Section 14 (A) (3), Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred on the High Court in terms thereof would stand revived.