ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common challenge to the constitutional validity of the Government Notification dated 3rd June 2002 published in the Official Gazette of the State of Bihar on 9th August 2008.

(2.) THE petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 7489 of 2006 are the wife and the brother of the deceased Sharma Choudhary, a class IV employee of the respondent no.6, Canara Bank. According to the writ petitioners the said Sharma Choudhary died on account of the atrocities meted to him being a Scheduled Caste person. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the police be directed to register the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989) read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; that the police be directed that the investigation for the offence be made by a police officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(3.) IT must, therefore, be held that the impugned Notification became effective from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e. on and from 9th August 2008. The learned Advocates have also argued that the impugned Notification has been issued without application of mind i.e. without reference to the circumstances stated in Section 9 of the Act of 1989. In their submission it has not been issued for prevention or for coping with the offences under the Act of 1989. If at all necessary, such notification could have been issued in respect of a district or a part of a district alone and not for the entire State of Bihar. Further, Section 9 of the Act of 1989 envisages conferment of the power of a police officer of arrest, investigation and prosecution upon the officers of the government i.e. government officers other than police officers. 20.1.2011.