JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Bidyadhar Samal in this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has challenged the impugned order dated 20.06.2002 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Baramba in G.R. Case No. 49 of 2000 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 450/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter in short ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’) and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Baramba P.S. Case No.49 of 2000.

2. It appears that on the basis of first information report submitted by the victim before the officer in charge of Baramba police station on 28.04.2000, Baramba P.S. Case No.49 of 2000 was registered under sections 450/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. After registration of the case, the officer in charge himself took up investigation of the case, examined the victim and other witnesses, visited the spot, seized incriminating materials, sent the victim for medical examination, seized the wearing apparels and vaginal swab of the victim collected by the Medial Officer and prayed before the learned J.M.F.C., Baramba for recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, seized the caste certificate of the victim and then on his transfer, the charge of investigation was taken over by his successor on 18.03.2001 who obtained the medial examination report of the victim, conducted raid at different places for arresting the petitioner and subsequently on his transfer, his successor took over charge of investigation on 08.05.2002. On 15.05.2002 the S.D.P.O., Athagarh took over charge of investigation and on 02.06.2002, he submitted charge sheet under sections 450/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act.

3. None appears on behalf of the petitioner so also on behalf of the informant.

4. On perusal of the grounds taken in the CRLMC application, it is mentioned that the ingredients of offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and since the investigation has been conducted substantially by the Officer in charge of Baramba police station and the S.D.P.O., Athagarh after taking over the charge of investigation formally submitted charge sheet, therefore, the order of taking cognizance under section 3 of the SC & ST (POA) Act is vitiated in the eye of law in view of the Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereafter “SC & ST (POA) Rules”).

5. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the case diary and submitted that the statement of the victim is very clear regarding the commission of offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He placed the statement of the victim.

6. After going through the first information report which was lodged by the victim who is a married lady as well as her statement, it appears that she has clearly stated that in the intervening night of 26/27.04.2000, the petitioner entered inside her house and committed rape on her and gave threat to her not to disclose about the incident before anybody. On the basis of materials on record, prima facie case under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out and therefore, no fault can be found with the investigating officer in submitting the charge sheet under sections 450, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also with the Magistrate in taking cognizance of such offences.

7. So far as the offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act is concerned, Rule 7 of SC & ST (POA) 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 just