RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE learned Single Judge of this Court (E. Dharma Rao, J.) while dealing with criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 1996 against the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam passed in CC. No. 16 of 1996 dated 5-11-1996, felt that two learned single Judges of this Court took conflicting views and therefore the matter was referred to this Bench for laying out the correct position of law.

( 2 ) THE appellant in that appeal was charged for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 506 (2) I. P. C. and under section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act (hereinafter referred to "as the said act" ). Basing upon the complaint of P. W. I, a case was registered.

( 3 ) IT was the allegation in the said complaint that on 17-5-1995 the accused trespassed into the mango garden of P. W. I, who is the Harijan Woman, and committed criminal intimidation by pushing her and further abused P. W. I by saying "mala yedava". After investigation into the crime, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakkapalle filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The case was committed for trial and the accused-appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (l) (x) of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 00 in default to suffer S. I. for one week. The accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 447 and 506 (2) I. P. C.

( 4 ) IT appears from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court that the learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to "as the said Rules") contemplates that the investigation has to be conducted by a Police officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police (for short "dy. S. P. ") and the Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government or Director-General of Police or superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigating it along with right lines within the shortest possible time and he shall complete the investigation on top priority within 30 days and submit the report.

( 5 ) IT further appears from the record that the learned counsel for the accused-appellant made a submission before the learned Single Judge that investigation in this case was done by the Sub-Inspector of police and therefore it is a violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the said rules.

( 6 ) IT further appears from the record that a ruling reported in Pentakota Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its public Prosecutor - 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 236 (A. P.) was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant in which it was held by another learned single Judge of this court that the rules framed under Section 23 of the said Act are statutory. Under Rule 7 of the said Rules, the investigation to be done by a Police Officer not below the rankof dy. S. P.- In the instant case, investigation was done by a Sub-Inspector of Police - violative of Rule 7 - Not disputed - Trial of the case cannot be set aside, unless illegality in the investigation brought about miscarriage of justice - Law well settled that illegality in investigation does not affect the competence of jurisdiction of the trial Court - Since no miscarriage of justice is shown in the instant case, the conviction cannot be set aside.

( 7 ) ONE more decision was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, who was dealing with Crl. A. No. 1016 of 1996 reported in Ramalinga Reddy @ D. Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999 (2) ald (Crl.) 436 = 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 287 in which another learned single Judge while dealing with Crl. A. No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document