whether an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) is bailable or non-bailable. - their lordships held that Section 4 of the Act postulates imposing punishment on a public servant not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who willfully neglect his duties required to be performed, with imprisonment of not less than six months but which may extend to one year.- in view of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C., the said offence has to be treated as bailable.- 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports


The petitioner herein worked as Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
West Division, Guntur  from 28.11.2011 to 09.02.2012 and from
12.02.2014 to 05.09.2014.
 During the said period, he is alleged to
have given a depressing picture in investigating cases registered
under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.  
It is stated that on the date of his
transfer from the said station, he is alleged to have left behind 21
cases un-investigated without any reason.  
In the report, which is
lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, a table showing the
pendency of the cases is enclosed.
 In fact, the said report addressed
to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is
recommending initiation of departmental action against the
petitioner.
However, the said letter written by the Superintendent
of Police to the Director General of Police was made the basis for
registering a case in Crime No.34 of 2015 of Narampalem Police
Station, Guntur District, for an offence punishable under Section 4 of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
The present application is filed seeking release in the event of
arrest in connection with the above crime.

Section 4 of the Act which reads as under:
4. Punishment for neglect of duties: Whoever, being a
public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties
requires to be performed by him under this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may extend to one 
year.
      Section 4 of the Act postulates imposing punishment on a
public servant not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, who willfully neglect his duties required to be
performed, with imprisonment of not less than six months but which
may extend to one year. 

 Since the Act is silent as to which of the offences are bailable
and which of the offences are non-bailable, one has to fall back on
to the Code of Criminal Procedure  to find out the same, as the Act
does not exclude the applicability of the Cr.P.C., except on certain
aspects.
As per Section 2 (a) of Cr.P.C., bailable offence means an
offence which is shown as bailable in first Schedule or which is made
bailable by any other law for the time being in force.
 Non-bailable
offence means any other offence.
The first schedule appended to
the Cr.P.C. contains two parts, 1) offence under IPC and (2) the
offence under other laws.
      In the second part of the first schedule to Cr.P.C., which deals
with classification of offences against other laws, it is stated that if
the offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than three
years or with fine only, the same is bailable, non-cognizable and
triable by any Magistrate.
 Section 18 of the Act states that nothing
in Section 438 Cr.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the
arrest of any person  on an accusation of having committed an
offence under the Act.
 From a reading of Section 18 of the Act, it is
clear that bar under Section 438 Cr.P.C. shall apply when a person
commits offences under the Act in which he is liable to be arrested.
Arresting a person would arise only if he commits an offence which is
non-bailable. 
Since the punishment prescribed under Section 4 of
the Act is an imprisonment upto one year and in view of the First
Schedule to the Cr.P.C., the said offence has to be treated as
bailable.

whether first Schedule to
Cr.P.C. can be made applicable to the offences under the Act when
Part-II  of First Schedule to Cr.P.C. states that offences which are
punishable with imprisonment for less than three years are triable by
the Court of Magistrate only, as the case on hand is triable by a
Special Court constituted under the Act and presided over by the
Sessions Judge.  Section 26 (b) (ii) of Cr.P.C. gives an answer to this
query.  From a reading of the Section 26 (b) (ii), it is clear that if the
Special law prescribes or refers a particular Court to deal with the
case, the same shall be done exclusively by that Court though the
schedule prescribes the same to be tried by some other Court.  Ergo,
though the offence under Section 4 of the Act is made punishable
with a maximum imprisonment of one year and triable by a Special
Court presided over by a Sessions Judge, the same has to be treated
as a bailable offence in view of the findings recorded above.  Hence,
no application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be entertained.
        Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.- 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.