Full Judgment Text
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
VISWANADULA CHETTI BABU ETC.
(Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2004 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 30,2010
[Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.]
2010(11) SCR 868
The following Order of the Court was delivered
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, framed under the Andhra
Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under:
“7. Investigating Officer (1) An offence committed under the Act
shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed
by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent
of Police after taking into account past experience, sense of ability
and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it
alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule(1) shall
complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and
submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will
immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the
State Government.
(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the
State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer-in-charge of
Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the
end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the
investigating officer.”
A bare perusal of the Rule would reveal that the State
Government/the Director General of Police/ Superintendent of Police
after taking into account the experience etc. of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police shall appoint him as the Investigating
Officer in cases under the above Act. Sub-rule (3) further provides
that the Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the
Government and other officers in charge shall review the working of
the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the investigations done by
him at the end of every quarter. It is therefore apparent that authority
to investigate has to be conferred on a specified officer not below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the clear
mandate of the Rules, it was only a specified Deputy Superintendent
of Police who could investigate an offence under the Act. An
investigation done by any officer below that rank and not specified as
per Rule 7 would not be entitled to investigate any such offence. In
the present matter the investigation has been made by an officer of
the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. This was not
permissible. We endorse the judgment of the High Court in this
respect.
The appeals stand dismissed.