A
B
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 868
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.]
c
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) RULES, 1995:
r. 7 - Investigating Officer -Held: In view of the clear
mandate of the Rules, it was only a specified Deputy
Superintendent of Police who could investigate an offence
D under the Act - Any officer below that rank and not specified
as per Rule 7, would not be entitled to investigate any such
offence - In the instant case, the investigation has been
made by an officer of the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector
of Police - This was not permissible - The Judgment of the
E
High Court in this respect, upheld -Investigation.
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.131 of2004.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 1996.
G
H
I. Venkata Narayana, D. Mahesh Babu and D. Bharati
Reddy for the Appellant.
Leela Sarveswar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
868
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. VISWANADULA
869
CHETTI BABU ETC.
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A
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
B
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under:
"7. Investigating Officer (1) An offence·committed
under thE! Act shall be investigated by a police offiGer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The c
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
D
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
E
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
F
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
G
Government/the Director General of Police/ SuperintE!ndent 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
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 11 S.C.R.
A
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
B 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
C 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 raf!k of an
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. This was not permissible. We
endorse the judgment of the High Court in this respect.
D
The appeals stand dismissed.
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
Lex