The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.143 of 2001 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Special G.R. Case No.10 of 1999. Chhabindra Kumar Malla @ Chhabi ---- …. Appellant -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate Mr.P.C.Mishra, S. Swain, P.K. Mishra, B. Rout, B.K. Das & S. Das (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 16.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.05.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th June, CRA No.143 of 2001 Page 1 of 5 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Special G.R. Case No.10 of 1999. By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 3(x) of the 2(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SC & ST (POA) Act). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) days. 2. The Appellant stood charged for commission of the offence under section 341/294/506/427 of the IPC read with section 2(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act and has been acquitted of the charges for all those sections under the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), before going to attack the finding of guilt against the accused, as has been returned by the Trial Court, submitted that the investigation of the case involved the offence under SC & ST (POA) Act, having been made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) of Police attached to Tirtol Police Station right from the beginning till closure and ending with the submission of the Final Form placing this accused to face the Trial for the above offence; the same is in CRA No.143 of 2001 Page 2 of 5 contravention of the provision under section 9 of the SC and ST (POA) Act read with Rule 9 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Rules, 1995 (for short, the SC & ST (POA) Rules) made thereunder. He, therefore, submitted that there being clear violation of Rule 7 of the SC & ST (POA) Rules, the Trial stands vitiated and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal are liable to be quashed. 4. Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, submitted that the investigation having been supervised by a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, it would amount to substantial compliance of Rule 7 of the SC & ST (POA) Rules and, therefore, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant does not merit acceptance. 5. In order to address the rival submission, Section 9 of the S.C and S.T. (POA) Act, being gone through, it is seen that the same empowers the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to appoint any officer of the State Government to exercise the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons before any Special Court when Rule-7 SC & ST (POA) Rules says that the offence committed under the S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act shall CRA No.143 of 2001 Page 3 of 5 be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent Officer. In the present case, the A.S.I. of Police (P.W.6) is the Police Officer, who had investigated the case and submitted the Final Form. Thus, there appears clear violation of the statutory provisions with regard to the investigation. The investigation, in the present case, having been made by an Officer, who was not competent to do so, the question now arises that in such event, whether the Trial of the case shall stand vitiated. The intention of the legislature is clear that the offence under the Act, be investigated by an Officer, who is not only experienced but also has sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. Therefore, the above violation/contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules goes to the very root of the matter that the Court should not have even taken cognizance of the said offence based upon the Final Form submitted by the P.W.6. Merely, because the investigation has been supervised by Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police; that will not suffice the purpose on the face of the settled law that if law prescribes certain acts/ deeds/ things to be done by a particular ranked Officer in a particular manner; it must be done in that way or not. Here, the whole exercise being made by an Officer who is CRA No.143 of 2001 Page 4 of 5 not empowered; mere supervision by an empowered Officer cannot be the substitute of investigation by him. In that view of the matter, the final outcome in the Trial so held pursuant to the order of cognizance and judgment is vitiated. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, impugned in this Appeal cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Special G.R. Case No.10 of 1999, are hereby set aside. (D. Dash), Judge. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2024 19:05:31 CRA No.143 of 2001 Page 5 of 5