Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Niranjan Reddy And Ors. vs State Of A.P. on 27 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ3125
Author: K.B. Siddappa
Bench: K.B. Siddappa
ORDER K.B. Siddappa, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad and Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. In this case, investigation was done by the Inspector of Police under Protection of Civil Rights Act. At the time of filing of the chargesheet it was found that the offences under SC and ST (POA) Act are committed and charge sheet was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar Division. This is questioned in these proceedings. The main contention is that, by virtue of Rule 7 of SC and ST (POA) Act, only the Deputy Superintendent of Police, specially empowered, shall investigate in the case. In the case on hand, admittedly Circle Inspector has investigated for the offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act. Therefore, charge sheet under SC and ST (POA) Act, cannot be filed on the basis of investigation done by the Circle Inspector of Police. It is not the case that the case involves all the offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act. Exclusive offences under SC and ST (POA) Act are made out against the accused and such charge sheet is not maintainable, as investigation is not done by the competent authority. The lower Court considered this aspect. It held, relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in (1999) 1 Andh LT (Crl) 236, that there was no illegality in investigation as it did not result in the miscarriage of justice. The lower Court was also aware of the judgment of this Court reported in (1999) 1 Andh LT (Crl) 287 : 1999 Cri LJ 2918, which is equivalent to (1999) 2 Andh LD (Crl) 436 (Andh Pra). In this case it was clearly held as follows :
Therefore, in order to ensure any misuse of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules lays down not only that the investigation should be done by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police but also lays down that such Officer should be specifically appointed by the State Government for investigating the offences under the Act. It further lays down that, while appointing such officers the Government should take into consideration his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. On bare perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules it becomes abundantly clear that even all Deputy Superintendents of Police cannot investigate offences under SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Only those officers who are not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police and are specifically appointed by the State Government, or the Director General of Police, or Superintendent of Police are competent for the purpose of investigating the case under the Act. This order of appointment can either be specific or general.
2. In this case the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the point in a proper perspective. Rule 7 of SC and ST (POA) Act is mandatory. The Rule reads that the offences committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. There is also a direction to complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report. This is the protection given under this rule.
3. In the case on hand, investigation was done in respect of offences under Section 7(1) of Protection of Civil Rights Act by the Circle Inspector of Police. Basing on such investigation the Assistant Commissioner of Police cannot file charge sheet under Section 7(3) of SC and ST (POA) Act. The fact that there is no miscarriage of justice will (sic) cure the defect. The mandatory provisions of Rule 7 should be complied with. If the investigation is not done by the authorised Officer and if it is done by some other person, such investigation cannot be relied upon to lay charge sheet under Section 3(10) of the SC and ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the whole process done in this case is misconceived and unauthorised. Hence the order of the lower Court is set aside and the revision is allowed. The charge sheet filed on the investigation done by the Circle Inspector of Police is quashed.
4. Accordingly the revision is allowed.