Full Judgment
R. Rajendra Babu, J.
1. Petitioner, the accused in C.P. 51/2000 pending before the J.F.C.M. Court, Hosdurg, filed this petition for quashing the entire prosecution proceedings pending against him. The C.I. of Police, Hosdurg, filed the final report in Crime No. 200/97 of Hosdurg Police Station alleging the commission of offences Under sections 445, 341 and 506(1), I.P.C. and also Under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act). The final report was filed before the Sessions Court, Kasargod and it was taken to the file as S.C. 46/97. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., 2000 (1) KLT 609 : (2000 Cri LJ 819), the case was sent back to the JFCM Court, Hosdurg for following the procedure of committal to the Special Court. Accordingly the case was registered as C.P. 54/2000 before the Court below. Now the petitionerseeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that the C.I. of Police who investigated the case and laid the charge was incompetent to investigate and prefer a charge-sheet in view of R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the Rules) and also on the ground that the allegations in the charge do not make out a case Under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that C.I. of Police was not competent to investigate the case and to file a charge-sheet as the investigation had to be done by a police officer not below the rank of a Dy. Superintendent of Police in view of Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 7 reads:
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.
(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.
Admittedly the case was investigated and charge-sheet had been filed by the C.I. of Police who was not competent to investigate the case and to file a charge-sheet and as such the charge-sheet laid was by an incompetent person. In Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector, 1992. (2) KLT 860 : (1993 Cri LJ 3599) a Division Bench of this Court held that a Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint filed by an incompetent person. That was a case where the State had not authorised any officer Under sub-rule 36-A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act and the Excise Circle Inspector who was not thus authorised, filed the complaint. There it was held:
No officer has been authorised by the State Government as per the aforesaid C1. (d). If so, the respondent has no authority to file a complaint for the offence under the NDPS Act. The corollary is that the Court of Session or Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the NDPS Act on such complaint.
In Varkey v. State of Kerala, 1993 (I) KLT 72 a Division Bench of this Court held that the trial held by the Sessions Court on a complaint filed by an incompetent person must be treated as non est as it was done without jurisdiction. Hence the charge laid by the C.I. of Police who was incompetent to investigate and file a charge under the provisions of the Act has only to be treated as non est. In Joy v. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT 59) this Court held that the discharge of an accused holding that the prosecution proceedings were not maintainable being initiated on the basis of a report filed by an officer not authorised in that behalf, a fresh prosecution on the same matter by an authorised officer was not hit by S. 300, Cr. P.O. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if the final report had been laid by the C.I. of Police who was not authorised to investigate and file a charge, the same can be quashed and the matter has to be sent to the investigating agency for conducting a proper investigation of the case by the competent and authorised officer and to prefer a final report in accordance with law. In State of M.P. v. Shri Ram Singh, 2000 (1) JT (SC) 518 : (2000 Cri LJ 1401), the Supreme Court held (at page 1404 of Cri LJ):
Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and decided cases under it.
As the charge had been laid by an incompetent person, it is liable to be quashed. But considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances, and also the object of the special legislation intended to deal with the atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes personnels the entire proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the case was investigated and the charge had been filed by a Circle Inspector of Police. As there was a breach of the provisions of the Rules, appropriate orders for such investigation as may be necessary has to be passed by this Court. It may not be proper to construe the provision liberally in favour of the accused resulting in the closure of the trial of such a serious offence against the petitioner/Hence a direction has to be issued to the investigating agency to proceed with the proper investigation by the competent authority and to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the F.I.R.
3. An argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the F.I.R. statement do not make out any case Under sub-rule 3(1)(x) of the Act as the alleged statement was not made at a place within the public view. On going through the statement it is seen that the statement was made at a shop and it is a place within public view and on that ground the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under the Act cannot be quashed. Hence the above argument also cannot be accepted.
In the result the proceedings in C.P. 54/2000 before the Court below against the petitioner shall stand quashed and there shall be a direction to the competent investigating agency to investigate the crime in accordance with law on the basis of the F.I.R.