The Odisha High Court passed an Order on 20 June 2022. In the case of Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.(CRLA No. 408 of 2022 )
The Orissa High Court has held that an order taking cognizance and issuing summons for offences alleged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an appealable order in terms of Section 14 A(1) of the Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra further held that such order cannot be classified as interlocutory order as the same qualifies to be an intermediate order! “…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.” Notably, 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”
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. The issue for consideration before the Court was 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?
In this case, the court showed that the laws in this regard were fully resolved by multiple ruling of the Supreme Court, as long as the property of the order was adopted, that is, the same, whether it was the same. Then he continued to trust the following observations by the Supreme Court of Greyish Kunar Snaja C. CBI, he paid attention to Madu Remays decision. Maharashtra about the subject. Also read: If the production supply tax rate is lower than the input tax rate, delete ITC IDMSIBLE deletion: Excellent Theangana Court “Intermediate Order is further revealed in MadHu Limaye V. The Maharashtra Sta is incompatible with the final order and the order of dialogue. This decision is established the principle according to which the intermediate order is one of the properties of the anti-intermittent, but when it is invested, it has the effect of completing the procedure, and therefore it can occur in the Final order. Two of these intermediate orders immediately come to my mind. Know the crime and repeated charges and accusations to summon the defendant. These instructions are in dialogue, but if the order in which the defendant is reversed by incorporating knowledge is reversed, it has the effect of completing the procedure for the person who has placed the final order. Likewise, an order to assemble the costs during the investment has the effect of downloading it to the accused and placing a final order. Consequently, if the intermediate order is represented again a specific method, the test will end, but the procedure will continue if it is adopted otherwise. “
In view of the aforesaid precedents, the Court held that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person is not 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 Act. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted as maintainable.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY KUNMUN DAS.