( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC seeks quashing of proceedings in PRC no. 45 of 1999 in which the petitioner is accused of offence under Section 3 (x) of scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ) and Section 504 of IPC.

( 3 ) AS disclosed in the charge-sheet filed in the case, the allegations are that on 9-9-1997 at about 11. 30 a. m. , the complainant-respondent No. 2 herein and others approached the petitioner acused who is Assistant Engineer in Andhra Pradesh housing Board, Wanaparthy and requested to issue free cement bags in-connection with certain work. The petitioner abused them in filthy language in terms of madiga Lanja kodukullara etc. and also refused to give cement bags. On the same day at about

( 4 ) 30 p. m. , the de facto complainant gave a report at the police station for the offence under Section 3 (x) of the Act and under section 504 of IPC. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed and the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as PRC No. 45 of 1999. The principal ground on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed is that the investigation done in this case was contrary to mandatory statutory provisions under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short the rules ). The contention is that as the charge-sheet has been laid without complying with the statutory provisions as to investigation, the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) RULE 7 of the said Rules reads as follows:"7. Investigating Officer : (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director general of Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the state Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social welfare Secretary to the State government, Director of Prosecution the Officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer".

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this High court in the case of D. Ramalinga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (2) ALD (Crl.) 436 = 1999 Crl. LJ 2918, in which his lordship Hon ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki held that an investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police and not by the officer envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules vitiates the trial and on that basis set aside the conviction of the appellant in that case and acquitted him of the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act. I am in respectful agreement with my learned brother.

( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that Rule 7 of the Rules has made provision for appointment of Special Investigating Officers for investigating into the offences under the Act. Rule 7 of the Rules contemplates, firstly that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy superintendent of Police. It does not rest here. It further provides that the investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, his sense of justice and his ability to perceive the implications of the case.

( 8 ) THUS, Rule 7 of the Rules prescr