Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1104 (ALL)

PURSHOTTAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-05

Y.K.SANGAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. It is undisputed fact in the matter that on the FIR lodged at the Police Station a Criminal Case for investigation was registered against the revisionist and other for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 of S.C.S.T. Act. Under Rule 7 framed in the Act provides that investigation of the offences committed under the Act shall be made by a Police Officer not below the rank of Dy. S.P. and such Officers shall be appointed by the State Government /Director General of Police . In the present case, it is undisputed fact that in earlier stage of the case investigation was not done by the Officer of above rank and almost total the investigation was completed by the Officers of the rank of Sub Inspector or Inspector but in the last of the investigation, Officer of rank of Dy. S.P. after verifying the correctness of the investigation submitted charge-sheet in the matter against the accused persons. On this charge-sheet submitted, Court appointed to conduct the trial in the offence under S.C.S.T. Act had started the trial of the accused persons after taking cognizance in the matter. Accused persons were charged to face the trial. They pleaded not guilty. Trial was started in the competent Court. Statements of all the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution were recorded and after recording the statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. of the accused persons and giving opportunity for adducing defence evidence to them, arguments were started and partly heard by the Court concerned. At this stage of the case an application 200 B was moved on behalf of the accused that according to Rule 7 framed under the provisions of the Act, investigation of the case was not made by an Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. Only he has submitted the charge-sheet in the case so all the investigation is illegal and invalid and charge-sheet submitted is also not according to the provisions of Law. This charge-sheet and proceedings of the trial may be quashed. Against this application, no written objections were filed on behalf of the State. S.P. Only he has submitted the charge-sheet in the case so all the investigation is illegal and invalid and charge-sheet submitted is also not according to the provisions of Law. This charge-sheet and proceedings of the trial may be quashed. Against this application, no written objections were filed on behalf of the State. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties’ counsel by the impugned order, learned Court has rejected the application. Aggrieved by this order, this Revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Sub-Inspector/S.O. were not authorised to investigate the offence detailed under the S.C.S.T. Act, so charge-sheet filed in pursuance of such investigation is liable to be quashed and trial held by the Court is also not according to Law. Application of the accused persons was rejected without applying judicial mind by the trial Court. Learned AGA replied that with detailed and sufficient reasons and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order. No illegality, invalidity and impropriety is there in the order. Revision filed is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 5. Undisputedly, this application 200-B was presented in trial Court when trial was almost completed and the case was fixed for final arguments and from perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that arguments in part were also heard by the trial Court. From perusal of the impugned order, it also reveals that on each and every stage of the case, accused persons tried to delay in the disposal of the case. Evidence was complete in the trial in the year, 2000 but still arguments are not concluded. A transfer Application was also moved on behalf of the accused before this Court and further proceedings in the trial Court were stayed by this Court. But this Transfer Application was also decided by this Court in the year, 1999 and it was rejected but this fact was not brought in the notice of the trial Court by the accused persons for ten years. When the fact of rejection of Transfer Application was brought in the notice of the Court, only then the proceedings in the case were again started. When the fact of rejection of Transfer Application was brought in the notice of the Court, only then the proceedings in the case were again started. It is also clear from the trial Court record that after going through the record trial Court observed that again and again case was get adjourned by the accused persons and he found that this application/paper No. 200-B is in continuation of the above delay tactics in disposal of the case on behalf of the accused. However by the impugned order, learned trial Court had decided the application that effect of case law cited on behalf of the accused will be seen at the time of final judgment in the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that as the investigation in the case was required by a Police Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. The case may be registered for the offence under Section 302, IPC and for the offence under Section 3 of the S.C.S.T. Act, even then the investigation of the case should have been made by an Officer of rank of Dy. S.P. only. It is wrong to say that if the case was registered for the offence under Section 302, IPC and under Section 3 S.C.S.T. Act, investigation can be made by an Officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. In State of M.P. v. Chunni Lal @ Chunni, 2009 (65) ACC 652, before the Apex Court almost similar question was there. An FIR was lodged of the offence under Sections 376 and 506, IPC and Section 3 (1) (XII) S.C.S.T. Act and investigation was made by a Police Officer, below the rank of Dy. S.P. but as per the prosecution case, each and every stage of the investigation, Officer of the rank of Dy. verified the correctness of the investigation and in the last he himself had submitted the charge-sheet in the case. Actually, investigation was not made by the Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. In this case, Apex Court laid down the Principle as follows : An Officer below the rank (of Dy. S.P.) cannot act as an Investigation Officer. verified the correctness of the investigation and in the last he himself had submitted the charge-sheet in the case. Actually, investigation was not made by the Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. In this case, Apex Court laid down the Principle as follows : An Officer below the rank (of Dy. S.P.) cannot act as an Investigation Officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code (Cr.P.C.) when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act, by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent Police Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non-investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent Police Officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court of the offences punishable under the I.P.C. notwithstanding investigation and the charge-sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence. 6. In the present case, trial of the accused persons is going on in the Court specially authorized to decide the cases of offence under Section 3 of the Act. Only it is to be seen by the Court what is the effect of investigation made for the offence under Section 3 of the Act by Officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. although the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court by an Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. Trial of the accused persons for both the offences was concluded except judgment before the competent Court. Learned trail Court has already observed in the impugned order that at the time of final judgment in the case, effect of the above fact will be seen. 6. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order for interference by the Revisional Court. Revision has no force and it is accordingly hereby dismissed. 6. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order for interference by the Revisional Court. Revision has no force and it is accordingly hereby dismissed. However, since it is a very old case, pending before the trial Court since the year, 1997 and impugned order also shows that arguments in the case are partly heard , trial Court is directed to expedite the final disposal of the case, if possible, within a period of 45 days. Inform the Court concerned forthwith accordingly. ————