YANNAM SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference coming before us, at the instance of the learned Single Judge Sri Justice T. Ch. Surya Rao, involves the question as to whether the investigation as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for brevity "the Rules") is mandatory.

(2.) The few facts, which are necessary for determination of the aforesaid aspect, are that in the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused, seeks to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.21 of 2002 pending on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.39 of 2001 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 354, 504 IPC and Section 7(i)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer-Sub Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet for the said offences on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kakinada who took cognizance of the same and committed it to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in PRC No.3 of 2001. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge has taken up the case by framing charges under Sections 447, 427, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) and Section 3(l)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an immediate neighbour to the de facto complainant who was cultivating the Government poramboke land admeasuring Ac.0.40cents by the side of Yeleru canal. On 23-3-2001 morning, the petitioner trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant and caused mischief by cutting four teak plants and thereby caused loss to a tune of Rs.400/-. However, it is alleged that when the de facto complainant and two others were trying to obstruct the petitioner from doing so, he abused her in filthy language and also pushed her by keeping his hands on her breast and dragged her to a distant field. According to the petitioner, initially a crime was registered under Sections 447, 427, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 7(lXd) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act The learned committal Magistrate took the complaint under Sections 3(i)(x) and 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, instead of 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act apart from the other offences alleged. Therefore, the committal Magistrate has no jurisdiction to alter the offence in the charge-sheet before committing the case to the Court concerned. However, according to the petitioner, he had no knowledge of a iteration of the offence in the charge-sheet by the committal Magistrate before committing the case and it is only after committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. It is stated that the committal Magistrate should have committed the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram since the charge-sheet was filed for the offences triable by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Further, the main point on which the case of the petitioner rests is that under Rule 7 of the Rules, investigation shall have to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and accordingly the charge-sheet should be filed by him but not by the Sub-Inspector of Police. However, in the instant case, the investigation has been conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has no jurisdiction under the said rule, and therefore, the charge-sheet filed by him is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be quashed.