REWARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.1996 passed by Special Judge, Dewas in Special Trial No. 70/94. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellants raised two folded contentions. His first submission was that conviction of appellants under section 3 (1)(x) of the Act is bad in law because of the breach of rule -7 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1995). In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Bharatsingh Vs. State of M.P reported in 2006 (4) M.P.L.J 171. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 is mandatory and breach thereof would vitiate the trial. Learned Single Judge in Bharatsingh (supra) had considered the provision of Rule 7 in the light of various decisions and thereafter held that Rule 7 is mandatory and an offence punishable under the provision of the Act can be investigated only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police specifically appointed by the State Government. In the present case, record shows that investigation was not done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995. Thus in view of the manifest error, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of appellants under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. This aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the trial Court while holding the appellants guilty under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is set aside.