Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Kalaburagi bench of the high court has said that it is for the legislature to amend the provision under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if need be, to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the high court.
Justice V Srishananda said this while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the state government, filed 381 days after the judgement.
As per second proviso to section 14-A, there is a total bar for entertaining the appeal after expiry of a period of 180 days. The case at hand pertains to an attack/group clash in 2014 at Yadgir for offences under the IPC (unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation) and under the provisions of Atrocities Act. The crime was related to a certain land dispute and the trial court acquitted Basalingappa, Manappa, Babu, Choudappa Mahiboobsab and Rayappa for lack of cogent evidence.
Though the judgement was passed on September 7, 2023, the state government through Shahapur police filed the appeal before the high court in October 2024. The persons acquitted in the case opposed the appeal on the ground that the high court cannot entertain appeal as it has no power to condone the delay beyond the 180 days prescribed under the Atrocities Act.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor BA Belliappa for the state contended that the government order for filing appeals was issued only on May 17, 2024. It was submitted that delay was owing to non availability of legible copies of certain documents and the same is neither intentional nor deliberate. Belliappa further submitted that, taking away the right of appeal only on the ground of technicality may be harsh in a given case and substantial justice would be denied to a litigant only on the technical ground of limitation.
Justice V Srishananda said that the Courts are only expected to enforce the law that has been enacted by the legislature and the second proviso to section 14-A clearly states that no appeal ‘shall’ be entertained after 180 days. “No doubt, there is sufficient force in the arguments put forth by the State Public Prosecutor. Nevertheless, since there is a statutory bar which is mandatory in nature in view of a word ‘shall’ being found in second proviso to Section 14(2),
As such, the courts are only expected to enforce the law that has been enacted by the Legislature. It is always open for the State Public Prosecutor to place a copy of this order before the Legislature to amend the statute if need be to provide a remedy for a litigant in such circumstances, where the delay has occurred on account of the reasons that are not attributable to a negligent litigant, but on account of bonafide reasons,” the court said.