E. Seshaiah vs The State and Another

Vaman Rao, J.—Heard both sides.

This petition u/s 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of proceedings in PRC No.45 of 1999 in which the petitioner is accused of offence u/s 3(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''the Act'') and Section 504 of IPC.

As disclosed in the charge-sheet filed in the case, the allegations are that on 9.9.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant -respondent no.2 herein and others approached the petitioner accused who is Assistant Engineer in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Wanaparthy and requested to issue free cement bags in-connection with certain work. The petitioner abused them in filthy language in terms of ''Madiga Lanja Kodukullara'' etc. and also refused to give cement bags. On the same day at about 4.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant gave a report at the police station for the offence u/s 3(x) of the Act and u/s 504 of IPC. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as PRC no.45 of 1999.

The principal ground on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed is that the investigation done in this case was contrary to mandatory statutory provisions under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short ''the Rules''). The contention is that as the charge-sheet has been laid without complying with the statutory provisions as to investigation, the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Rule 7 of the said Rules reads as follows:

"7.INVESTIGATING OFFICER:- (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sent of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.

(2) the investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution the Officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer."

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this High Court in the case of D.RAMALINGA REDDY V. STATE OF A.P. 1, in which His Lordship Hon''ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki held that an investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police and not by the officer envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules vitiates the trial and on that basis set aside the conviction of the appellant in that case and acquitted him of the charge u/s 3(1)(ix) of the Act. I am in respectful agreement with my learned Brother.

It may be mentioned that Rule 7 of the Rules has made provision for appointment of Special Investigating Officers for investigating into the offences under the Act. Rule 7 of the Rules contemplates, firstly that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It does not rest here. It further provides that the investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government ,Director General of Police , Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, his sense of justice and his ability to perceive the implications of the case.

Thus, Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes criteria for appointing Special Investigating Officers for investigating into the offences under this Act. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 7 of the Rules contemplates that such investigating officer so appointed under Sub-Rule(i) shall complete investigation on top priority within 30 days and shall submit report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. Thus, the Rule also contemplates that not only an offence under the Act shall be investigated by the specially qualified investigating officer of the rank not below the Deputy Superintendent of Police but the investigation shall also be supervised and scrutinized by the Superintendent of Police and Director General of Police. Thus, appointing of the Investigating Officer under Rule 7 of the Rules is not a routine formality but has specific purpose. Investigation done by the officer not appointed under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules must, therefore, be held to be in violation of the statutory provisions and would certainly vitiate the trial.

In this case, the charge-sheet specifically mentions that on receiving the report, L.W.8 - The Superintendent of Police, registered a case and investigated into the crime. Not to leave any doubt, the charge-sheet further mentions that during the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined L.WS.1 to 7 and recorded their statements.

The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor ,however, is that in this case charge-sheet also mentions that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Wanaparthy took up further investigation of the case and verified the investigation done by L.W.8-the Sub-Inspector of Police,Wanaparthy town. The learned Public Prosecutor also refers to the fact that the charge-sheet itself has been filed under the signature of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. This according to the learned Public Prosecutor is sufficient compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules referred to above.

I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned Public Prosecutor . The word ''investigation'' has been defined u/s 2(h) of the code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:

"2(h) ''investigation'' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf;"

Thus, the term ''investigation'' in the Code means ascertaining of facts , shifting of materials and storage for relevant date and assess their veracity and dependability.

In this case, the charge-sheet would disclose that altogether 10 witnesses have been cited on behalf of the prosecution. The Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.8) has examined all the material witnesses LWs.1 to 7. L.W.9 is another Sub-Inspector of Wanaparthy Town Police Station and L.W.10 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer who affixed his signature in the charge-sheet.

In this case, for the purpose of Rule 7 of the Rules, ''investigation'' means fenating out facts and assessing their worth and dependability. The only act attributed to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer is that he verified the investigation done by the Sub-Inspector of Police- L.W.8. A "verification of investigation" cannot be equated with "investigation" as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rues. Verification of investigation by a Superior Officer is a common procedure followed in respect of investigation of all cases where investigation has been done by the subordinate officers. Such verification of investigation by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer does not satisfy the requirement that investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police specially appointed under Rule 7 of the Rules. The statutory purpose of entrusting investigation in such sensitive offence which involve on social harmony and human rights is to ensure that the officer investigating into the offence is perceptive enough to understand the social implications of the case and to ensure that he is fair enough to avoid misuse of the provisions of the Act.

It would appear in this case that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has not even examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses to the occurrence. "There is nothing to show what exactly the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has done by way of investigation into the offence. It is however true that during the investigation, the investigating officer may be required to be assisted by the other police officers. The mere fact that some other officer has assisted the investigating officer does not detract from the fact that investigation was done by the officer concerned. But, in this case, the Sub-Inspector-L.W.8 has not stated to have assisted the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in his investigation but the very categoric assertion is that L.W.8 -the Sub-Inspector conducted the investigation. Verification of Investigation" and lending his signature to the charge-sheet by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Rule 7 that offences shall be investigated by a specially appointed officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in respect of offence u/s 3(x) of the Act must be held to be bad and vitiated in view of the investigation having been conducted in contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules. The contents of the charge-sheet do not show that the petitioner-accused had an intention to insult the complainant with an intend to provoke the breach of peace. Hurling of mere insulting words does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence u/s 504 of IPC. There must be some material to show or to involve that the accused had an intention to provoke the breach of peace. In the absence of any material on this aspect and the circumstances of the case also not indicating any intention on the part of the petitioner to insult the complainant to provoke breach of peace, the prosecution for the offence u/s 504 of IPC cannot also be continued.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in PRC no.45 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy are quashed.