MAHESWAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this case under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been heard along with a batch of cases involving the offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') but keeping in view the distinguishable facts involved in this case the Criminal Misc. case is disposed of by this separate Judgment.

(2.) THE two petitioners are accused nos. 8 and 9 in G.R.Case No. 132 of 1997 of the Court of Special Judge, Cuttack involving the offences under Sections 458, 342, 354, 380, 506/36 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Act as per the impugned order of cognizance dated 20.8.1998. That G.R. case is pending in the court of Sessions Judge cum special Judge, Cuttack. As per the impugned order, upon receipt of the charge sheet submitted by the Officer in charge, Baramba Police station, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences both under the Indian Penal Code and the Act. That order is challenged on the ground of falsity in allegations due to political rivalry, non availability of prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 354, and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Act and illegality in investigation having been done in breach of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules'). The State of Orissa i.e., the prosecution is opposite party No. I whereas the informant is the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) IT is not disputed at the bar that in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P. (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Apex Court, has propounded in paragraph 16 of the said judgment that: