SANJAY KRUSHNA KATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-313
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 01,2023

Sanjay Krushna Katkar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LORD MACMILLAN IN LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO. VS. BERRIMAN [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TOLARAM RELUMAL VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MARRICHANDRASHEKHARRAO VS. DEAN GETH G S MEDICAL COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA VS. JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. APPA BALU INGALE [REFERRED TO]
ACTION COMMITTEE ON ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAM KISHNA BA LOTHIA [REFERRED TO]
VALSAMMA PAUL MRS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. COCHIN UNIVERSITY:DR KANJAMMA ALEX [REFERRED TO]
S PUSHPA VS. SIVACHANMUGAVELU [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD [REFERRED TO]
LALU PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
THE BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON DALIT HUMAN RIGHTS & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH VS. DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS [REFERRED TO]
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS VS. JASSA RAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

BHARATI DANGRE, J. - (1.)By order dtd. 28/11/2022, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) formulated two issues arising before him, to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and requested for constitution of a Bench of two or more Judges to decide the same.
(2.)The issues are eloquently set out in the order dtd. 28/11/2022, as under:
"A. If a person belongs to a caste or a tribe which is declared by notifcation as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a particular State or Union Territory, but not in other parts of the country, then whether any act defned under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; can be an offence outside that State or Union Territory.

B. The Appeals under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be decided by a Single Judge Bench or by a Division Bench and whether such Appeals would fall within any of the clauses (a) to (i) of Rule 2(II) (Criminal) of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960."

(3.)We would proffer to pronounce on the Issue No.(B) ahead of issue formulated as Issue No.(A), as the said issue is more facile and not much debated.
ISSUE NO.B

"WHETHER AN APPEAL UNDER Sec. 14-A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 CAN BE DECIDED BY SINGLE JUDGE OR WHETHER IT REQUIRES HEARING BY THE DIVISION BENCH"



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.