The State of Maharashtra Vs Anirudha Manik Adsul and Anr.

It is the contention of learned APP that though the offences under Indian Penal Code and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Atrocities Act’) are made out against the respondent, learned Additional Sessions Judge without taking into consideration the bar

criappeal98.19.odt

granted by Section 18 of the Act exercised powers under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is selfexplanatory which indicates that prima facie neither offences under Indian Penal Code nor under the Atrocities Act are made out. He further submits that in any case there is no propriety in interfering with the impugned order after four years of passing thereof.

Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report and other material placed on record clearly shows that the fndings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was conscious about the bar created by Section 18 of the Atrocities Act and recorded that offences punishable under Atrocities Act are not attracted. Hence, this Court fnds no substance in the submission of learned APP. Hence, application is rejected.

dyb

The State of Maharashtra v. Anirudha Manik Adsul and Anr.