SACHIDANANDA MOHAPATRA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are four out of 43 accused persons in G.R. Case No. 789 of 1996 of the Court of Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge. Cuttack. They challenged the order of cognizance and continuance of the proceeding of the said G.R. Case on the grounds that:

(2.) At the stage of hearing on admission and disposal, on consent of parties, learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. D. Nayak. however, urged that order of cognizance by a Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, as per order dated 26 10 1998 is contrary to the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v/s. State of A.P., (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364 and since the provision in the Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. 1995 (in short 'the Rules') was not followed with respect to appointment of an Investigating Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and non -commitment of the case, Petitioners may be permitted to raise that legal issue even if Petitioners have not taken such a plea in their application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. He further argued that on such ground alone, the Criminal Proceeding is liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to hear the case on that legal issue. It is relevant to mention here that this case was heard along with a batch of Criminal Misc. cases involving the aforesaid legal issues. For the sake of convenience, this judgment is delivered separately in this case.

(3.) In the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v/s. State of A.P., (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Apex Court in clear term has held that: