SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 224

K.B.SIDDAPPA
M. Niranjan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


K. B. SIDDAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad and Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. In this case, investigation was done by the Inspector of Police under Protection of Civil Rights Act. At the time of filing of the chargesheet it was found that the offences under SC and ST (POA) Act are committed and charge sheet was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar Division. This is questioned in these proceedings. The main contention is that, by virtue of Rule 7 of SC and ST (POA) Act, only the Deputy Superintendent of Police, specially empowered, shall investigate in the case. In the case on hand, admittedly Circle Inspector has investigated for the offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act. Therefore, charge sheet under SC and ST (POA) Act, cannot be filed on the basis of investigation done by the Circle Inspector of Police. It is not the case that the case involves all the offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act. Exclusive offences under SC and ST (POA) Act are made out against the accused and such charge sheet is not maintainable, as inve




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top