CHANDRA AMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are A-1 and A-2 in S. C. No. 33 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagir i. THE present appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by judgment dated 19. 3. 98. Before the Trial Court, the first appellant/a-1 was charged under Sections 448 and 323 I. P. C. and another charge was also framed against the appellants as well as the acquitted accused/a-3 under Section 3 (1 ) (x) of SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). THE learned Trial Judge, on the materials placed on record, while acquitting A-3, found A-1 guilty under sections 448 and 355 as well as under Section 3 ( 1 ) (x)of the Act and found A-2 also guilty under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. For each of the offence under Sections 448 and 355 I. P. C. , A-1 was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100 carrying a default sentence of one week simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 3 (1 ) (x) of the Act, A-1 and a-2 were each sentenced to undergo 6 months RI together with a fine of Rs. 100/-carrying a default sentence of one week simple imprisonment. As already stated, the said conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that A-1 trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 Chinnasamy along with A-2 and caused simple injuries to his son P. W. 2 by attacking him with hands and that a-1 to A-3 intentionally insulted by calling them in the name of their community. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined P. W. s 1 to 10, marked Exs-P1 to P10 and M. O. 1.

(3.) THERE is no force in the submission of the learned government Advocate since Rule 7 (1) of the Rules contemplates that, "an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 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. " therefore, in view of the fact that the said rules had come into force with effect from 31. 3. 95, which contemplates that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer, not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police and that such officer shall be appointed either by the state Government/director General of Police/superintendent of Police, the entire investigation after 31. 3. 95 has to be termed as improper as P. W. s 9 and 10 are incompetent to proceed further in the matter. Hence, it is clear, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the investigation conducted in this case is vitiated.