MAHESH SONI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. 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(1)(ii)(vi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [here in after referred to as the 'SC/ST (POA) Act'].

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The informant had lodged the FIR against the accused persons, on the basis of which, Gumla P.S. Case No. 79 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 219 of 2005 was instituted for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The police case was not instituted under the SC/ST (POA) Act, even though it was stated in the FIR that the informant belonged to ST Category. The investigation in this case was made by the A.S.I., of Police, who also submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other accused only for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by the Court below and the petitioner was ultimately put to Trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. In Magistrate's Court, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution on 24.11.2006, stating that the offence was also made out under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, and accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, who was conducting the trial, committed the case to the Special Court, by order dated 5.12.2006, finding that there were ingredients for the offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused persons. Ultimately, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, by order dated 9.2.2007 passed in the said G.R. No. 219 of 2005, framed the charge, also for the offences under Section 3(1)(ii)(vi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, against the accused persons.

(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 [hereinafter 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 chargesheet 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 Section 3(1)(ii)(vi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.