Chunni Lal vs State of M.P.

Uma Nath Singh, J.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records filed with the revision.

The main submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the S.I. of police who conducted investigation in the matter is not competent to do so in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Trivedi prays for quashment of the entire proceedings. Ms. Alka Pandya submits that on account of unavoidable circumstances, the investigation was conducted by S.I. of Police under the oral instruction of the Additional Superintendent of Police. She also submits that on the challan, not only the S.I. of Police but also Additional Superintendent of Police has put his signature. Thus, according to Ms. Pandya, the investigation is not vitiated on that count.

On due consideration of the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the investigation has been done by a Police Officer who was not competent to do so and the said defect is in-curable, which rather goes to the root of the matter. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of E. Seshaiah vs. State of A.P. and another 2001 Cri.L.J. NOC 10 (A.P.), held that the investigation done and witnesses examined by S.I. of Police, even in the face of verification of the said investigation by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and chargesheet filed under his signature, was not a sufficient compliance of Rule 7. Further the Madras High Court in the matter of Chinnasamy vs. State also took a similar view relying on an earlier deicsion of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of D. Ramalinga Reddy @ D. Babu Vs. State, .

Under the circumstances, the criminal revision is allowed and the entire proceedings in respect of the case No. 255/01 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Hoshangabad (M.P.) hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the criminal revision succeeds.