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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more