LAW FOR ALL

whether the discharge of accused from the offences under Sections 302/34, 404/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and 1 Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter being referred to as “Act, 1989”) at the advanced stage of the trialwhen almost all the material witneses have been examined by the prosecution is correct ? Apex court held that This question has been examined by a two­Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. Vs. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh 2009(12) SCC 649. Relevant para is as under:­ “ By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue a notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigating officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent 8 police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non­investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge­sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence.” (emphasis supplied) Undisputedly, in the instant case, the respondents were charged under Sections 302/34, 404/34 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and the charges under IPC have been framed after investigation by a competent police officer under the Code, in such a situation, in our view, the High Court has committed an apparent error in quashing the proceedings and discharging the respondents from the offences committed under the provisions of IPC where the investigation has been made by a competent police officer under the provisions of the Code. In such a situation, the charge­sheet deserves to proceed in an appropriate competent Court of jurisdiction for the offence punishable under the IPC, notwithstanding the fact that the charge­sheet could not have proceeded confined to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989. The order impugned is accordingly restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC.