Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

B.P. Das, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'... ... ...

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sd......

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10.8.2000

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sd......

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10.8.2000

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '535226',
			'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
			'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'... ... ... </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sd......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10.8.2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '535226',
		(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr Vs State of Orissa - Citation 535226 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '535226',
		'acts' => 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7; ;<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 2 and 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 323 and 341',
		'appealno' => 'CRLMC No. 1322 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  , who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.K. Ragada, ;L.N Patel, ;N.K. Das and ;S. Singh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>B.P. Das, J.</p><p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.</p><p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').</p><p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.</p><p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.</p><p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.</p><p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-</p><p>'... ... ... </p><p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.</p><p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.</p><p>Sd......</p><p>10.8.2000</p><p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'</p><p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.</p><p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.</p><p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '535226',
	(int) 1 => 'pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535226/pradeep-pradhan-anr-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>B.P. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they would be released on bail on the terms and conditions set out therein and with liberty to raise the point that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the Act. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.D.J.M. by order dated 4.4.2002 saying that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of cognizance as the case is triable by the Special Court and the Court of the S.D.J.M. is only a committing Court. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dismissed the same by order dated 5.2.2003. As it appears, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the points raised by the petitioners could be decided during the course of trial.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially filed Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance on various grounds one of such being that the case has not been investigated by the designated police officer but by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which is not provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') but the said Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of with the observation as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, after the Crl. Misc. Case filed by the petitioners was disposed of, this Court in the judgment dated 20.3.2003 rendered in Ranjit @ Rajat Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (II) O.L.R. 65, decided a similar question which squarely covers the case of the petitioners. In the case of Ranjit (supra) the investigation was taken up by a Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently a Deputy Superintendent of Police ('D.S.P.' in short) was appointed as Investigating Officer. The D.S.P. after perusing the case diary of the previous I.O. and testing some witnesses already examined filed the charge-sheet. This Court held that submission of such charge-sheet could not be said to be on the basis of the investigation taken up by the D.S.P. and ultimately quashed the proceeding for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court also in a batch of cases in Chandra Sekhar Pani and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa, 2004 (I) OLR 389 (2004) 27 O.C.R. 836, held that violation/contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules would entail an investigation illegal and would vitiate the, trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the investigation into the offence under the Act has not been conducted by the D.S.P. in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall go through the rigor of trial.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. In order to examine the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case, which was registered under Section 3 of the Act, has not been investigated by the designated police officer, i.e., a police officer not below the rank of D.S.P., this Court called for the case diary of the aforesaid case and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the same before this Court. On perusal of the said case diary it is found that the case was investigated by one J. Oram, S.I. of Police of Ainthapali P.S., who examined the informant as well as several other witnesses. The entries made in the case diary on 10.8.2000 under Index No. 567799 discloses as follows:-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'... ... ... ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>As per order of Addl. S.P., SBP vide memo No. 1637/ SR dt. 4.8.2000 I handed over the charge of investigation to Sri P. M. Das, O.P.S., S.D.P.O., Sadar, Sambalpur.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 11 => '<p>Took charge of the investigation of the case from S.I. J. Oram as per the Memo No. 1637/SR dt. 4.8.2000. Perused the C.D. and other connected papers in the case. The S.I. J. Oram has taken all other steps except the arrest of the accused persons Rinku @ Saukumar Pradhan and Pradeep Pradhan. I shall conduct raids for the apprehension of the accused persons.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>Closed the diary for the day pending further investigation of the case.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Sd......',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10.8.2000',
	(int) 15 => '<p>S.D.P.O. (S) SEP.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Thereafter the S.D.P.O. conducted several raids on the houses of the accused persons but could not get them. On 10.10.2001 he closed the diary as well as the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet on the same day against the accused persons showing them as absconders. The entries made in the C.D. between 10.8.2000, i.e., the date on which the S.D.P.O. took over charge of the investigation of the case, and 10.10.2001, i.e., the date on which the charge-sheet was filed, the S.D.P.O. except making certain searches and raids on the houses of the accused persons for their apprehension, has not done anything which can be construed to be 'investigation' as defined in Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Law is well settled regarding the scope and ambit of investigation which includes collection of evidence by a police officer. The investigating officer shall collect evidence which may ultimately culminate in filing of final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No reiteration in this regard is necessary as the same has been elaborately discussed in Chandra Sekhar Pani's case (supra). From the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is crystal clear that this case is similar to the case of Chandra Sekhar Pani (supra) and it is covered by the decision of the said case.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. The steps taken by the D.S.P., i.e., the S.D.P.O., as it transpires from the C.D. so produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in my opinion, would show that the charge-sheet so submitted by the D.S.P. can never be said to have been filed on the basis of the investigation made by him in terms of the statutory provisions and, therefore, the investigation made is illegal being violative of Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly I set aside the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603/1999 taking cognizance against the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. The said order taking cognizance of the offences under various other sections of the I.P.C. is maintained and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners shall now face the trial for the offences under the I.P.C. only. The order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Crl. Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 is accordingly set aside so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109