MAHESH SONI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Gumla, in Gumla P.S. Case No. 79 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 219 of 2005, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal code and Section 3(ii)(vi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ' SC/ST (POA) Act').

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order framing the charge under the SC/ST (POA) Act is absolutely illegal, in view of the fact that the investigation of the case was made by the A.S.I. of police, whereas the law requires that it should be made by the Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who shall be appointed by the state Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police in accordance with Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules (herein after referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Rules'). It is also submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, had entrusted the investigation of the case to the S.D.P.O., Gumla, who received the charge of investigation on 30.5.2006 and he submitted charge sheet by only after recording the statement of the informant, on the basis of which, the charge has been framed against the accused persons. Learned counsel has further submitted that the S.D.P.O., Gumla, was never appointed for investigation of this case under the provisions of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules and the investigation was entrusted to the said police officer only to complete the formalities. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that firstly, the S.D.P.O., Gumla was not appointed in accordance with law for investigation of the case and secondly, no investigation worth mentioning was done by the S.D.P.O., Gumla, and only recording the statement of the informant, fresh charge sheet had been submitted. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below, framing the charge against the petitioner, also for the offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(vi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.