Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1192 (AP)

Makkaji Ram Raj v. State Of A. P.

2004-10-13

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. Ravinder rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed as against the judgment in Special C. C. No. 26 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge under Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions judge, Adilabad, dated 31-1-2000. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants had brought to the notice of this court that the Special Judge, being a Court of Session, straightaway could not have taken the cognizance in view of the bar under section 193 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short the Code ) and hence, on that ground itself, the acquittal may have to be recorded. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court with regard to certain other legal infirmities. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor also would fairly contend that in the light of the provisions of Section 193 of the Code the Court of Session could not have taken straightaway the cognizance of the offence without committal. ( 5 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Nimal town, filed charge-sheet against the accused alleging that on 12-4-1997, at about 10-30 a. m. , the Town Planning Buildings inspector and the Engineer of Nirmal municipality along with their staff went to a building known as "samad Complex" near new Bus Stand, Nirmal, for demolition of illegal construction made by one M. A. Hamad, s/o. M. A. Samadm, and started executing the demolition work and then A1- advocate, A2 and his brother came to the place and obstructed the demolition work and that A1 turned violent and caught the town Planning and Buildings Inspector by his collar with the assistance of A2 and his brother and abused him in filthy language and that A2 and A3 abused the staff of the complainant in the name of their caste, knowing well that they belonged to scheduled Castes. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge examined p. Ws. 1 to 5 and Exs. Pl and P2 and also exs. D1 to D9 were marked. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge examined p. Ws. 1 to 5 and Exs. Pl and P2 and also exs. D1 to D9 were marked. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge came to the conclusion that in view of Rule 7 of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules ) the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ) beyond all reasonable doubt. But, however, a1 and A2 were sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 3,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each, under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation had caused prejudice and was done in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules. Since the learned Judge recorded a finding that in view of the violation of Rule 7 of the rules, the prosecution railed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the observation that the guilt of the accused under Section 353 of the Indian penal Code as against A1 and A2 had been proved, definitely, cannot be sustained. The investigation was made in contravention of rule 7 of the Rules in relation to all the offences and the charge-sheet had been filed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is no committal to the Court of session in accordance with the provisions of section 193 of the Code. ( 8 ) VIEWED from any angle, the imposition of fine definitely cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled for refund of fine amount, if any, paid.