Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing A. Sasikumar vs The Superintendent Of Police, ... on 10 February, 1998

Maheswar Panda And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 28 October, 2002

In the case of A. Sasikumar (supra) the Madras High Court found the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, (the Investigating Officer) was legally not tenable because of the involvement of the offence under Section 3 of the Act and in view of the provision in Rule 7 of the Rules, and accordingly directed for investigation by competent Police Officer, in the case of D. Ramalinga Reddy (supra) conviction under Section 3 of the Act was set aside because of non-investigation of the case by a competent Police Officer in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules.
Orissa High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - P K Tripathy - Full Document

M. Kathiresan vs State on 22 March, 1999

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court in A. Sasikumar v. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram wherein it is observed that Deputy Superintendent of Police and Officers above his rank alone can hold investigation in regard to offence under Section 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Inspector of Police has no power to investigate; investigation done by the Inspector of Police is immaterial; direction issued to Superintendent of Police to depute Deputy Superintendent of Police to make further investigation into the matter and to file final report before Special Court. It is therefore clear that the investigation done by the Inspector of Police relating to the case under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not proper and correct and as such, it is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1