Patna High Court – Orders
Gopal Prasad Yadav @ Gopal Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 16 January, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2582 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2015 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Gopal Prasad Yadav @ Gopal Prasad Son Of Late Somari Prasad Yadav R/O-
Mohalla- Mali Gali Road No.-1, Wazirganj, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Kishorei Ravidas R/O- Village- Maula Nagar Murd
Ghati, Po-Ps- Wazirganj, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Purushotam Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2025
Heard Mr. Purshottam Sharma, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special PP for
the State.
2. The present Memo of Appeal is preferred against for
quashing of the order dated 17-05-2023 passed by the court of
Spl. Judge SC/ST Gaya in Wazirganj PS Case No.- 98/15, T.No.-
280/2023 by which the Learned Court has took cognizance
against the appellant u/s- 302, 201 of IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act
and issued summons for appearance and the case is pending in the
court of Learned Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, Gaya. The Wazirganj PS
Case No.- 98/15 FIR is registered only under section 302/ 201 of
IPC.
I.A. No. 01 of 2024
3. The I.A. No. 01 of 2024 has been preferred for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2582 of 2024(4) dt.16-01-2025
2/4
condoning the delay of 280 days in filing the memo of appeal
against the order dated 17.05.2023.
4. It is the case of the appellant that earlier final form
was submitted on 24.03.2019 but the cognizance took place on
17.05.2023. The appellant is an old person and having many kind
of disease which delayed the filing of appeal.
5. Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special PP has taken
this Court to section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 which read as
follows:-
(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 an Exclusive Special Court, to
the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to
the High Court against an order of the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or
refusing bail.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, every appeal
under this section shall be preferred within a
period of ninety days from the date of the
judgment, sentence or order appealed from:
Provided that the High Court may entertain
an appeal after the expiry of the said period of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2582 of 2024(4) dt.16-01-2025
3/4ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal
within the period of ninety days:
Provided further that no appeal shall be
entertained after the expiry of the period of one
hundred and eighty days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1)
shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a
period of three months from the date of admission
of the appeal.
6. He further submits that after the passing of 180 days,
‘the SC/ST Act, 1989’ prohibits filing of an appeal. It is his further
submission that even otherwise the Interlocutory Application does
not disclose anything when he got the information and took steps.
Further, there is nothing on record (not a single chit of paper) to
show what kind of disease the appellant have. He as such prays
for dismissal of Interlocutory Application as also the appeal.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that in Satendra and Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
(Cr. Misc. No. 38755 of 2017) the Full Bench of Allahabad High
Court had declared the 14(A)(3) of the SC/ST Act, 1989Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 2582 of 2024 ultra vires.
8. Learned Special PP on the other hand submits that
SLP (Crl. No. 544 of 2019) (Union of India vs. Vishnu Behari
Tiwari) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2582 of 2024(4) dt.16-01-2025
4/4
the present Section 14(A) of the 1989 Act.
9. Having gone through the facts of the case and the
materials available on record as also the submissions put forward
by the parties, a perusal of the I.A. No. 01 of 2024 moved show
that vague statements have been made without specifying when
the appellant got knowledge about the order, what steps he took
and further what kind of disease he has, in that background,
submissions put forward by learned Special PP becomes
important.
10. In that backdrop, the delay of 280 days having not
been explained property by the appellant, no relief can be granted.
11. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands rejected.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2582 of 2024
12. As the I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands rejected,
consequently, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2582 of 2024 stands dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T