Dismissed

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022CRLR/2668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision as not maintainable under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which permits appeals but not revisions. The court allowed liberty to file an appeal with condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file appeal with condonation of delay.

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2668 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Sharma,Jeevanjee Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and who is also holding brief of Sri Jeevanjee Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.6, 8, 9 and 12.

¶6

On behalf of the respondents, the issue of maintainability of this criminal revision is raised. It is argued that though the revision has been admitted, however the issue of maintainability can be raised at any stage of the proceeding being the most vital issue, which impinges on the final disposal of the matter as well.

¶7

My attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section14A of the Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended with effect from 26.01.2016, which is as below:-

¶8

"14A. Appeals. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law;

¶9

(2) ............;

¶10

(3) ............;

¶11

(4) ..........."

¶12

It is contended that the provision is clear in itself that from each and every order except interlocutory order, only appeal shall lie and not revision or any other remedy as per the provisions. To lay stress on this submission, a judgement of High Court given in Gulam Rasool Khan and Others vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.1000 of 2018 decided on 28.07.2022 has been cited before me. The objection against the maintainability taken by the respondents appears to be well founded.

¶13

At this juncture, it is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that though he concedes the legal point raised, but in view of peculiar circumstances, he may either be given liberty to file an appeal or may be allowed to convert this revision into appeal. The respondents have not objection on this point.

¶14

It may be noted that this revision was filed within time and was admitted too albeit under some wrong impression of law, hence though revision is being dismissed. However in case revisionist decides to file an appeal, he is entitled to delay condonation of the period gone in this proceeding. The respondent has no objection if such a concession is given to him. With the above observations, this revision is dismissed as not maintainable .

¶15

Certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 may be returned to the revisionist as per rules and regulations.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Saif

¶17

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.14 16:38:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deenbandhu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile (X) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajat Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another