RAJU GOUNDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-8-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13442 of 1994. Of course, the learned single Judge has decided a batch of writ petitions by the common order under appeal; W.P. No. 13442 of 1994 was one of them. The petitioners and several others challenged the validity of S. 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Central Act 33 of 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the provisions contained therein are violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has held that the provisions contained in S. 18 of the Act are not violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution; accordingly, the writ petition in question along with several other connected writ petitions has been dismissed.

(2.) Having regard to the contentions urged before us, the following point arises for consideration : "Whether the provisions contained in S. 18 of the Act are violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution ?" 2.1. Section 18 of the Act reads thus :

(3.) We are unable to appreciate how a provision like the one in question can be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It is not available only to such persons who are accused of having committed offences under the Act and not in respect of any other offence. These persons fall in a distinct category. If that be so, the second contention, that the classification made under the provisions as to offences punishable under the Act and offences punishable under the other laws is unreasonable and has no nexus to the Act, also has no basis. It may be pointed out that the offenders under the Act and the offenders under the other penal laws of the country fall under different categories. As such there is no comparison, and they cannot be grouped in one class. That being so, there is no question of any unreasonable classification when the offenders do not fall in the same category. The offenders under the various laws cannot be placed in one category or class. Thus the contention that there is unreasonable classification has no basis because the Act does not discriminate the offenders coming under it. That the offenders under the other enactments can avail S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is no ground to hold that the provision is discriminatory because the Act has been passed, as already pointed out, after having realised that the provisions contained in the Indian Penal Code and the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, are not adequate and the existence of those provisions have not in any way proved to deter the crimes. Hence, we are of the view that the offenders under the other penal laws cannot at all be classified as falling in the category of offenders under the Act.