Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul , JJ.
State of Bihar and others etc. – Appellants
Versus
Anil Kumar and others etc. – Respondents
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4397-4400 OF 2017 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 27524-27 of 2011) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4401 OF 2017 (Arising from SLP(C) No.7317 of 2017)
Decided On : 23-03-2017
(b) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 9 – Vesting power of delegating investigative powers to any officer of the State in addition to the officers exercising those powers under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, i.e., officers holding the rank(s) of Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector – Power vested with State Government expansive – Intended to enlarge the zone of arrest, investigation and prosecution – Said power irrespective of provisions of CrPC and could be exercised irrespective of provisions of the Act – No illegality in impugned notification. (Para 14, 15)
(c) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 23 and 9 – Rule making power in section 23 is of national character – Power vested on State government u/s 9 is State specific – Section 9(1)(b) conferring on the State Government, power to further delegate the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution – In view of non-obstante clause in section 9 power vested with the State Government u/s 9 cannot be neutralized by the Rules framed u/s 23 – Rule 7 as well as notification dated 03.06.2002 held valid. (Para 16, 18, 19)
(d) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 9 and 23 – Commencement of notification u/s 9 – From the date of its publication – Section 23 not conferring power on Central Government to frame Rules retrospectively – Hence power vested in State Government u/s 9 cannot be exercised with retrospective effect. (Para 20)
(e) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 9 – Notification dated 03.06.2002 becoming effective on 09.08.2008 r/w section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Notification authorizing Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Asst. Subv-Inspector to conduct investigative process – Investigation by such officers before 09.08.2008 – Effect – Held, would be valid if causing no prejudice to accused – Even if such investigation are held invalid, the same officers would investigation legally under new regime and no purpose would be served. (Para 23, 24)
(1955) 1 SCR 1150; (2014) 16 SCC 285; (1970) 3 SCC 513; (1971) 2 SCC 48; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (1973) 1 SCC 726 – Relied upon
Fact of the case:
This case pertains to the validity of the investigative process, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It challenges the validity of State Government notification dated 03.06.2002 on the ground of being violative of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and State Government notification dated 03.06.2002 issued u/s 9 are valid.
Result: Appeal filed by appellant-accused dismissed. Appeal filed by State of Bihar allowed.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
2. The question that arises for consideration, emerges from the impugned order, dated 18/20.01.2011, passed by the High Court of Patna. It pertains to the validity of the investigative process, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SCST Act').
3. In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, learned counsel in Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 7317 of 2017 (filed by an accused before this Court) invited our attention to Section 3(2) of the ‘SCST Act’, which is extracted hereunder:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1)…. …. ….
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with death;
(ii) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is not capital but punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years or upwards and with fine;
(iii) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to any property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine;
(iv) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for human dwelling or as a place for custody of the property by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;
(vi) knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence; or
(vii) being a public servant, commits any offence under this section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence.”
(emphasis is ours)
As a matter of comparison, our attention was also drawn to Section 201 of the Indian Pena
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
