HRUSIKESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. petitioner has prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 20.12.1999 in Special Case No. 14 of 2000 of the Court of Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Balasore, arising out of G.R. Case No. 742 of 2000. Learned Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 294/506, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act'). This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was heard along with a batch of cases involving similar legal issues and has been disposed of by separate judgments in each of the cases. It be noted that both the parties consented for disposal of this application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. at the stage of admission.

(2.) ONE of the legal issues which is involved in the batch of cases is as to whether an investigation made by a Police Officer not appointed for investigation in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short 'the Rules') read with Section 9 of the Act is valid to take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act. It has been held by this Court that such an investigation per se is illegal. It has been held that when an investigation is conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or by an officer who is not lawfully appointed under the said provision of law to conduct and carry on the investigation, then in the event of submission of charge -sheet on the basis of such an investigation the cognizance -taking Magistrate shall not take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, but if the charge -sheet includes the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code then he has to consider the matter relating to cognizance of the offences under Penal Code and to proceed with the Criminal Proceeding in accordance with law.

(3.) ANOTHER legal issue involved in the batch of cases is as to whether the Court of Session functioning as Special Judge is to take cognizance of the offence without an order of commitment. This Court has held that in view of the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A. P. (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Court of Session functioning as the Special Judge to take up the cases involving the offence under Section 3 of the Act is not required to accept the charge -sheet or to take cognizance without an order of commitment.