Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006)
State of Punjab ...Appellant
Versus
Hardial Singh and Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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