ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Tejo Mistry, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J.C. to G.P. II. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondents for further investigation in connection with Birni P. S. Case No. 156 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 341, 324, 323, 380, 427, 504, 506 & 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(i), (iii)/9 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A further prayer has been made for handing over the investigation to a competent person not below the rank of Dy.S.P. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer only with respect to the investigation to be carried out by a person not below the rank of the Dy.S.P. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the Section 7 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, any investigation with respect to an offence committed under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is to be done by a person not below the rank of Dy.S.P. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of the provisions of the statute, the investigation which is being carried out by the Sub-Inspector of Police is against the spirit of the Act and the Rules and therefore appropriate direction be issued for handing over an investigation to the person not below the rank of Dy.S.P. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chunnilal alias Chunni Singh” reported in (2009) 12 SCC 649 . 4. Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J.C. to G.P. II, on the other hand, has submitted that in terms of Section 9(i) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, power to investigate into an offence under the Act has been delegated to a police officer of the rank of Inspector and Sub-Inspector. It has been stated that the notification dated 24.11.2012 has subsequently be reiterated by another notification dated 10.06.2016. It has been stated that the notification dated 24.11.2012 has subsequently be reiterated by another notification dated 10.06.2016. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the notification of the State Government, the Sub-Inspector of Police is authorised to investigate into an offence under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. As has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties, the investigation into the offence is still in progress. It appears that thereafter a case was instituted being Birni P. S. Case No. 156 of 2015. Investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector of Police - Ram Bishun Paswan. 6. Rule 7 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1955 lays down 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 justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.” 7. Rule 7 therefore, categorically envisages that any offence committed under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P. of Police. In terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, the State Government could not have come out with such notification as has been appended with the counter affidavit by directing that any investigation into an offence under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be done by the Inspector or Sub-Inspector of Police. 8. The question as to whether the investigation can be carried out by a police officer below the rank of Dy.S.P. had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chunnilal alias Chunni Singh” (supra) wherein, on consideration of the Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of he Rules, it was held as follows: 8. Chunnilal alias Chunni Singh” (supra) wherein, on consideration of the Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of he Rules, it was held as follows: 8. “The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Secton 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of 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 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 an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC 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.” 9. What would thus flow from the Rule 7 of the Rules as well as by the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chunnilal alias Chunni Singh” (supra), the Sub-Inspector of Police is precluded to carry out investigation which involves an offence under the provisions of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 10. In such circumstances therefore since as has been stated by the learned J.C. to G.P. II, the investigation into the offence is still going on, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to appoint a competent police officer in terms of Rule 7 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules to investigate into Birni P. S. Case No. 156 of 2015, which exercise shall be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Application disposed of.