SUDHANSU SEKHAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the cases out of the batch of cases heard by this Court relating to investigation into an offence under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act'). On consent of the parties, this application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was heard for disposal at the stage of admission. Like other cases, separate judgment is delivered in the present case too.

(2.) Petitioner is the accused in Binka Police -station Case No. 64 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 191 of 1999. Offences alleged are under Sec. 420, Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 of the Act, on the ground of cheating members belonging to Scheduled Caste community relating to payment of grants under the JRY Scheme. This application was moved at the stage when the investigation is still in progress. Learned Standing Counsel, at the time of argument, was unable to state whether the investigation was continuing or completed. Petitioner raised a legal issue challenging the competency of the Officer -in -charge, Binka P.S. to investigate into the case in view of the provision in Sec. 9 of the Act, read with Rule 7 of the S.C.& ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short 'the Rules'). In the case of In Re: Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Cuttack v/s. State of Orissa, (2002) 22 OCR 92, this Court has held that investigation into an offence under Sec. 3 of the Act must be made in accordance with provision in Sec. 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules read with Sec. 4(2) Code of Criminal Procedure In that respect, following a catina of decisions in the case of Laira Naik and Ors. v/s. State of Orissa and Ors., Criminal Misc. Case No. 1096 of 1999 (judgment delivered today) this Court has followed that ratio. Therefore, if the investigation is still in progress, it is for the State to take appropriate steps for appointment of a competent Police Officer in accordance with law to conduct the investigation. If the investigation is already completed, then, if the prosecuting/investigating agency shall move any application for fresh investigation, by a competent police officer, in accordance with the aforesaid provision of law then that shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate and disposed of that in accordance with law. It has also been held by this Court that if investigation is made, not in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, then, the concerned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3 of the Act but he can proceed with the Criminal Proceeding with respect to offences under Indian Penal Code for taking cognizance and proceeding with the case in view of the provision in Sec. 4(2) Code of Criminal Procedure The same view is followed in the present case.

(3.) Since the investigation was in progress when this application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, therefore, the assertion of falsity in the allegation (in the F.I.R.) is premature to be considered at this stage. In the event of completion of investigation resulting in submission of charge -sheet, if so advised, Petitioner may redress his grievance, before the court below and in such an event, such issue may be decided in accordance with law.