RAJESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused No. 5 in S.C. No. 1588 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused persons is that they committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 452, 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged that the accused persons trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, and insulted him by calling his caste name.

(2.) The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a Special Court for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner filed an application, Crl.M.P. No. 2535 of 2003, before the Special Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him. The Court below dismissed that application. The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous case is to quash the order passed by the court below in Crl.M.P. No. 2535 of 2003. It is stated by the petitioner that investigation in the case was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and the charge was also laid by him. This is not disputed by the respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 reads as follows:

(3.) The purpose of providing that the investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is indicated in Rule 7 itself. In view of Rule 7, the Circle Inspector of Police is not entitled to conduct investigation or to submit the final report. The Madras High Court in Easwaramoorthy v. State 2002 (2) KLT Short Notes Case No. 19, held that the final report laid in respect of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act is liable to be quashed if the investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police and not the Officer as provided in Rule 7. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad v. Kusuma Mallaiah and Ors. 2005 CRL.L.J. 1162, did not interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that the investigation of the case involving an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act was not conducted by an Officer appointed to investigate the same. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dhanraj Singh v. State of M.P. 2005 CRL.L.J. 3782, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused on the ground that the investigation in respect of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act was not conducted by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was held that the special provision contained in Rule 7 has a purpose and if it is not followed strictly by the investigating agency, the purpose of the Act cannot be achieved. In Muhammad v. Sukumaran 2001 (1) KLJ 154, a learned single Judge of this Court held that investigation by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police would be a sufficient ground to quash the charge. However, the learned Judge held that considering the nature of the allegations and circumstances and also the object of the special legislation, the entire proceedings could not be quashed on the ground that the case was investigated and the charge was laid by the Circle Inspector of Police. The charge was quashed and a direction was issued to the competent investigating agency to investigate the crime in accordance with law on the basis of the First Information Report.