State of Punjab Vs. Hardial Singh and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2003]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2003]
Petitioner: State of Punjab
Respondent: Hardial Singh and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2003]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2003]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 08, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. K.K. Khurana, AAG, Mr. A.K. Mehta and Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. K.K. Khurana, AAG, Mr. A.K. Mehta and Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav, Mr. Nirmal Kr. Ambastha, Mr. Anurag Singh and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Inherent jurisdiction – Exercise of – Accused party alleged to have committed various offences under IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – In accordance with the Rules, a police officer not below the rank D.S.P. to investigate the case under the Act of 1989 – The D.S.P. authorized by District Superintendent of Police but there was a S.S.P. of the District – In view of that High Court observed that charges against the accused persons are to be dropped in respect of all offences – Further, finding that a charge under Section 364 IPC has been framed, High Court observed that it cannot be said that there was no prima-facie case – Justification. Held that the order of the High Court is confusing. In view of State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh [JT 2009 (6) SC 256] case, only investigation qua the offence under the Act of 1989 is vunerable and not those under the IPC, even if the authorization of the police officer was illegal. Appeal accordingly allowed. (Paras 5, 6)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Inherent jurisdiction – Exercise of – Accused party alleged to have committed various offences under IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – In accordance with the Rules, a police officer not below the rank D.S.P. to investigate the case under the Act of 1989 – The D.S.P. authorized by District Superintendent of Police but there was a S.S.P. of the District – In view of that High Court observed that charges against the accused persons are to be dropped in respect of all offences – Further, finding that a charge under Section 364 IPC has been framed, High Court observed that it cannot be said that there was no prima-facie case – Justification. Held that the order of the High Court is confusing. In view of State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh [JT 2009 (6) SC 256] case, only investigation qua the offence under the Act of 1989 is vunerable and not those under the IPC, even if the authorization of the police officer was illegal. Appeal accordingly allowed. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh [JT 2009 (6) SC 256]
JUDGEMENT:
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.
2.1. 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 Ferozepur 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, Ferozepur for offence punishable under Section 364 IPC for abducting Surjeet so that he may be murdered.
2.2. 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 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 [JT 2009 (6) SC 256].
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 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.
**********
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.
2.1. 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 Ferozepur 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, Ferozepur for offence punishable under Section 364 IPC for abducting Surjeet so that he may be murdered.
2.2. 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 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 [JT 2009 (6) SC 256].
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 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.
**********
