Important point
Offence under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is to be investigated by Dy. S.P. and charge sheet filed on the basis of investigation conducted by Sub-Inspector could not be a basis for taking cognizance of offence.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Das, J.— Heard Shri B.K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and ors. v. State of Orissa1, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘D.S.P.’ in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and others etc. etc. v. State of Orissa2, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the trial.

Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.

5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police o