ORDER
C.R. Pal, J.
1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who figure as accused persons in G.R. Case No: 419 of 200l of the Court of S.D.J.M., Angul corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No. 98 of 2001 for their alleged involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 452, 294, 323, 427, 354, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have for quashing the proceeding.
2. The case against the petitioners is that on 24-5-2001 at about 4.00 p.m. the petitioners came to the house of the informant and called his cousin Baidyanath Biswal in a threatening voice. The informant came out of his house to ascertain the reasons, but the petitioners scolded him in filthy and derogatory language touching his caste. When he protested against such action of the petitioners, they forcibly entered into his house and one of them assaulted him by means of a iron rod. When the mother of the informant interfered, she was assaulted by one of them. The wife of the informant was also dragged out of the house. The motor cycle of the informant was damaged by hitting it by means of iron rods and lathies. They also threatened to take away the life of the informant. On the above information, the aforesaid P.S. Case was registered by the O.I.C., Angul Police Station and the matter is under investigation.
3. The petitioners challenge the legality of the proceeding contending that since Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules envisages that the offences under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be investigated by the police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., the investigation of the same by the O.I.C. who is neither an officer of the rank of D.S.P. nor is appointed by the authority envisaged under the rules is illegal and as such the investigation is liable to be quashed. For better appreciation, Rule 7 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is quoted below :--
'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.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.
(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government Director of Prosecution, the officer in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.'
4. There is no dispute that by the date the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station no officer of the rank of D.S.P. was appointed by any of the authorities mentioned in Rule 7, sub-rule (1) to investigate into the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the provisions of Rule 7, sub-rule (1) being mandatory in nature, investigation by the D.I.C. vitiates the entire proceeding. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on M. Niranjan Reddy v. State Andhra Pradesh reported in 2000 Cri LJ 3125, D. Ramalinga Reddy alias D. Babu v. State of A. P. reported in 1999 (2) Crimes 343 : (1999 Cri LJ 2918) (A.P.).
In M. Niranjan Reddy (supra) investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police for the offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act. At the time of filing of charge-sheet, it was found that the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are committed and charge sheet was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Before the learned Special Judge, objection was raised which was rejected on the ground that there was no Illegality in investigation as it did not result in the miscarriage of justice. In revision, the High Court observed that the fact that there is no miscarriage of justice will not cure the defect. The mandatory provisions of Rule 7 should be complied with. If the investigation is not made by the authorised officer and if it is done by some other person, such investigation cannot be relied upon to lay charge sheet, under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the whole process done in this case is misconceived and unauthorised. Accordingly, the charge sheet filed on the investigation done by the Circle Inspector of Police was quashed.
In Ramalinga Reddy alias D. Babu (1999 Cri LJ 2918) (supra) the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 341, I.P.C. In appeal to the High Court, it was urged that since the prosecution was initiated under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the investigation should have been conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintended of Police and the investigation having not been conducted by such an officer, the trial is vitiated. Considering the provisions of Rule 7 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules the Court held that since the investigation has been conducted by an officer who was not authorised in law to conduct the investigation, the trial is vitiated. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of that charge. However, his conviction under Section 341, I.P.C. was maintained and the sentence was reduced to fine.
5. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, relying on A. Sasi Kumar v. Superintendent of Police reported in 1998 (3) Crimes 279 submitted that since the investigation is in progress, the Court may direct for fresh investigation by a competent officer and the investigation cannot be quashed. In the above case on the information lodged by the petitioner a case was registered for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Later, the F.I.R. was transferred to the Inspector of Police to register a case and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed final report stating it to be a mistake of fact. The petitioner challenged the same before the High Court of Madras. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing, considering the provisions of Rule 7 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules held that the Inspector of Police had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and directed the Superintendent of Police to depute a Deputy Superintendent of Police to make further investigation under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code.
6. In the above context, reference may also be made to A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1973 SC 913 : (1973 Cri LJ 902) wherein while considering the provisions of Section 5A of Prevention of Corruption Act the Apex Court held (Para 14) :--
'................that the function of investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent Court of the offence so investigated. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, (1955) 1 SCR 1150 : AIR 1955 SC 196 : (1955 Cri LJ 526) it was held that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the Court for trial and where cognizance of the case in ' fact been taken and the case has proceeded to terminating the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1952 .............'
7. In view of the above principle, the view taken in M. Niranjan Reddy (2000 Cri LJ 3125) (supra) and D. Ramalinga Reddy (1999 Cri LJ 2918) (supra) cannot be of any help to the petitioners. On the other hand, there is no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court in A. Sasi Kumar (1998 (3) Crimes 279) (supra). In the case in hand, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that in the meantime, the Superintendent of Police, Angul by his order dated 24-5-2001 has appointed Shri D. Jota, D.S.P., Crime Branch to investigate into the offences falling under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules which is mandatory in nature, the investigation made into the case by the D.I.C. is quashed. Since the S. P., Angul has already appointed the D.S.P. to investigate into the matter, the D.S.P. shall proceed with the same till the investigation is brought to its logical end.
With the above direction, the Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.