R. RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The Sub -Inspector of Police and the Head -Constable, who are the accused in C.C. No. 4447 of 1998 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, appear to have taken law into their own hands but the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet Range, Chennai, who had filed the final report, went leaps ahead of them and assumed the role of a Judge by filing a final report against the accused only for an offence under S. 325 IPC and thereby acquitting his departmental colleagues from the graver offence of S. 326 IPC even before trial. A learned single Judge of this Court as early as in the year 1983 in a judgment in Marappa Gounder v. Venkatahalam : (1983 L.W. (Crl.) 1) set out the duties and responsibilities of police officers in charge of an investigation as well as the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Court. It appears what the learned Judge had said then seem to have been forgotten by all people concerned. Therefore I feel it desirable to repeat here what the learned Judge said so that it will act as a sharp reminder to all people concerned. The learned Judge in that judgment had stated as follows:

(2.) THOUGH initially after hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ashokan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned State Public Prosecutor and Mr. P. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel representing the Madras High Court Advocate Association, I visualised that there appears to be some biased investigation, yet on going through the Case Diary very carefully and meticulously, I find that the Inspector of Police, H -3 Police Station, Chennai, who was in charge of this investigation till 12.6.1998, appears to have proceeded in the right direction. The materials collected by him from the date of the occurrence till he handed over the investigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, reveal that prima facie an offence under S. 326 IPC is made out. It may be noticed here that the crime in this case was originally registered under Ss. 341 and 324 IPC alone and later on the Section of offence was altered into Ss. 341 and 326 IPC since the materials collected during the investigation revealed that the injured had suffered a fracture and lathi was used in the commission of the offence. There are no materials whatsoever on record till this date in this case to show as to how the Assistant Commissioner of Police was justified in filing the final report for an offence under S. 325 IPC. Whether the weapon of offence stated to have been used in the crime against the injured in this case would attract S. 326 IPC or it would attract only S. 325 IPC is purely within the realm of the Court to be gone into at the time of trial and decided after appreciation of evidence. As I have already observed, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Washermenpet Range, Chennai, had assumed the role of a Judge in this case which he is totally prohibited from so doing.

(3.) MR . C. Duraipandian, Learned Counsel who is before this Court defending the cause of the accused in this case, states that the anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of his clients in this case could not be argued on account of the atmosphere not being conducive and under these circumstances only the anticipatory bail petition came to be dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. Therefore, I hereby reserve me liberty of the accused in this case to move for whatever relief they deem fit before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, irrespective of the dismissal of their earlier request for anticipatory bail.