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

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more