Visnhu Chandra Gupta, J.;— JUDGMENT (1) This Criminal Misc. Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of Crl. Case No. 3850 of 2006 (State Versus Yogesh Mishra and Ors.) arising out of case Crime No. 31 of 2006, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3(1)X Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') relating to Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, the order dated 19.8.2006 summoning the petitioner to face the trial (Annexure 2 to the petitioner) and nonbailable warrant by order dated 22.9.2011. (2) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. (3) The proceedings sought to be quashed on the sole ground that in this case the investigation has not been conducted by a competent Police Officer as required under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ( in short 'The Rules') framed under the SC/ST Act. Hence, prosecution launched on the basis of such police report is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. (4) The only question raised before this court is in regard to competence of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation and its effect ? (5) The counter affidavit has already been filed by Investigating Officer Sri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh. The rejoinder affidavit has also been filed reiterating the contents of the earlier affidavit filed in support of petition. (6) While deciding this petition the entire facts need not be discussed in view of the limited controversy involved in this case. The relevant facts necessary to decide this petition are as follows : (7) This case was initially registered u/s 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., but during the course of investigation it was found that offence u/s 3(1)X SC/ST Act is also made out against the petitioner. Despite of it the investigation conducted by the same Sub-Inspector, namely, Ram Kumar Yadav and chargesheet has been submitted after investigation u/s 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act. (8) The affidavit filed on behalf of Ram Kumar Yadav, S.I., clearly indicates that he is a Sub-Inspector and he conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet. (8) The affidavit filed on behalf of Ram Kumar Yadav, S.I., clearly indicates that he is a Sub-Inspector and he conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet. On the strength of this affidavit, the learned A.G.A. submits that in pursuance of chargesheet submitted, the court has already taken cognizance. Hence, the cognizance taken against the petitioners could not said to be bad. In the alternative it was also argued that the investigation conducted by Sub-Inspector in respect of offences under I.P.C. cannot said to be without jurisdiction and as such the proceedings of the case pending before the court below in respect of offences under I.P.C. cannot be quashed. (9) The moot question for consideration before this court is; What would be the effect if cognizance is taken by court against an offence under SC/ST Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed in pursuance of an investigation conducted by an officer not authorised under Rule 7 of the Rules ? (10) The aforesaid question is not res integra. The Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Hardyal Singh and Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 106 and in State of M.P. Vs. Chunnilal (2009) 12 SCC 649 observed that investigation conducted by an officer not authorised under rule 7 of the Rules shall be illegal and cognizance taken by the court would also be illegal. (11) Rule 7 provides that an offence committed under SC/ST Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of 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 experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implication of the case. This rule mandates that an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot investigate a case involving an offence committed under the SC/ST Act. (12) Section 9 of SC/ST Act defines power of State Government for conferment of power to be exercised by a Police Officer by issuing notification in any district or part thereof, as the case may be, for such cases or class or group of cases, and in particular, the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons by the Special Court constituted for trial the offence under SC/ST Act. (13) The learned A.G.A. failed to produce any such authority or conferment of power upon the Investigating Officer of this case. (13) The learned A.G.A. failed to produce any such authority or conferment of power upon the Investigating Officer of this case. The Investigating Officer of this case is admittedly a Sub-Inspector and not a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. (14) It is true that in this case initially investigation started for investigating the cases under I.P.C. on the basis of first information report lodged but when the investigation officer during the course of investigation found that accused persons also committed an offence u/s 3(1)X SC/ST Act, he was under a legal obligation to report the matter to the Superintendent of Police of District and stop further investigation. After taking note of the Investigating Officer into consideration the Superintendent of Police may depute a competent officer to investigate the matter falling under SC/ST Act. If the investigation of this case would have been done, later on, by the officer competent to investigate the case, the defect of investigation may be removed. But in this case this exercise has not been done by the investigating officer as is evident from his affidavit filed before this court. He decided himself to investigate the matter despite detection of the fact that the accused persons also committed an offence under the SC/ST Act. The Investigation Officer committed statutory breach of Rule 7 of Rules read with Section 9 of SC/ST Act. The consequence in terms of judgement of the Apex Court in Hardayal's case (Supra) shall follow. (15) In view of the above discussion, investigation only related to offence under 3(1)X SC/ST Act being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules read with Section 9 of SC/ST Act would be illegal and without jurisdiction. The cognizance taken in pursuance of such illegal investigation in respect of the offence under section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act would be illegal and the prosecution relating to offence under Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act is liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed. (16) However, it is made clear that the cognizance taken in respect of other offences relating to Indian Penal Code shall not be effected by this order. The petition is accordingly disposed of finally. _____________