State Of Punjab vs Hardial Singh & Ors

State of Punjab ...Appellant

Versus

Hardial Singh and Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in an application under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code').

The respondents were accused of having committed the offences punishable

under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(in short the `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The stand taken was

that as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short the `Rules') framed under

the Act, investigation had to be undertaken by an officer not below the rank

of Deputy Superintendent of Police specially appointed by the State

Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after

taking into account of his experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive

the implication of the case and investigate it along with right lines within

the shortest possible time.

2 The stand of the State was that SP (D), Ferozepur had authorized Shri

Manwinder Singh to investigate the case. It was admitted that there is a SSP

in Ferozpur district who shall come within the definition of SP under Rule 7

of the Rules. The High Court held that SP (D) cannot be called District SP

or the incharge of the District who could mark investigation to DSP

Manwinder Singh. It was, therefore, held that the charges against the

accused-respondents in the present case were to be dropped in respect of

offences punishable under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 IPC, and

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. After having said so, the High Court said that the

observation that so far as the other offences are concerned as per report of

the Deputy Superintendent of Police himself there had been party faction

and efforts have been made to implicate many persons possibly the present

petitioners. Strangely, the High Court found that the accused persons have

been charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur for offence

punishable under Section 364 IPC for abducting Surjeet so that he may be

murdered.

But, having observed so the High Court said that it cannot be said that

there was no prima facie case against the petitioners (meaning thereby the

3 accused persons) to frame charges and disposed of the case in the above

terms.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the order is

absolutely confusing. At one stage the High Court had directed the charges

against the accused persons for all the offences both under the IPC and the

Act to be dropped but at subsequent stage it had noted that it cannot be said

that there was no prima facie case against the accused persons to frame the

charges.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment.

5. As is rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant-State the

order is very confusing. Be that as it may the only question is whether

investigation done by the police officer specifically authorized to do so in

terms of the Rule 7 is illegal qua offences not relatable to any provision

under the Act. Recently, the controversy of the present nature was decided

by this Court in State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh (Criminal

Appeal No. 943 of 2003) decided on 15.4.2009.

6. Having the view expressed in Chunnilal's case (supra) we hold that

only investigation qua the offence under the Act is vulnerable and not those

4 relatable to IPC. It is open to the State to authorize any person in the manner

prescribed to investigate into the offences under the Act.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, May 08, 2009

5