JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The applicant, who is an Advocate, approached this Court under section 482 Cri.P.C. for quashing of First Information Report as also investigation under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the "Act"). The applicant has made further prayer to stay his arrest. By order dated 11-11-1997 by way of interim relief the police were directed not to arrest the applicant and the said order was continued vide order dated 15-12-1997 till final disposal of the matter after the matter was admitted.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant made the following submissions before me :---

(1) There is delay of fifteen days in filing the complaint.

(2) That, the utterances attributed to the applicant do not make out any case under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.

(3) The alleged utterances were not made within the "public view" as no witnesses were present and the witnesses are alleged to have come to the room after the incident, and

(4) That, according to Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the "Rules"), investigation into the offences committed under the Act has to be done by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and the investigation in this case has been carried out by the Police Inspector who is not authorised to investigate into the offence under the Act and as such, the entire investigation is vitiated upon which no proceedings can be based.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court in (M. Kathiresan v. State)1, 1999 Cri.L.J. 3938 in support of his contention that the investigation conducted by the Officer other than the Deputy Superintendent of Police is improper and the same is bad in law as a result of which the proceedings are required to be quashed. Learned Advocate for the applicant also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in (Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka)2, 1998 Cri.L.J. 53, on the question of delay; that, the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is required to have taken place in public view and that merely calling a person by his caste, is not sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. urged before me that the delay has been properly explained in the complaint itself; that the utterances by the applicant are sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) of the Act; that the utterances were heard by a number of staff members and as such, the offence has been committed within the "public view" and that the investigation by an unauthorised Officer does not vitiate the trial unless the accused is able to establish prejudice on that Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in (P. Nallammal others v. State)3, 1999 Cri.L.J. 1591 in which reliance has been on number of judgments of the Apex Court on the subject.

5. Section 18 of the said Act provides that nothing in section 438 Cri.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the said Act. Thus, the remedy of anticipatory bail is not available to the applicant in respect of the offence committed under the said Act. If the First Information Report, statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cri.P.C. and the available material in the case diary ex facie do not disclose the ingredients constituting the offence under any of the provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Court to grant anticipatory bail cannot be said to be taken away. This view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Ramchandra v. State)4, 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 669. The applicant had sought stay of his arrest and no application for anticipatory bail was filed.

6. Coming to the merits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document