9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Rules) - the rule which was issued by the Central Government, in exercise of the power vested with it, Under Section 23 of the SCST Act - HELD THAT - In the exercise of its Rule making authority, the Central Government was fully competent and justified, in requiring that the investigative process be conducted by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Central Government had the jurisdiction of framing rules, and the Central Government had exercised its jurisdiction within the framework of the authority vested in it. We therefore hereby affirm the validity of Rule 7 of the SCST Rules. Whether the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 03.06.2002, in exercise of the power vested in the State Government, Under Section 9 of the SCST Act, can be considered to have been exercised in breach of, or in excess of the power delegated to the State Government? - HELD THAT - The non obstante clause, extended to the State Government, power to overlook and provide differently, from the position contemplated under the SCST Act, as well as the SCST Rules. The issue whether the State Government was competent to relax the above rule, requiring that investigation be not carried out, by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and thereby, extend the power of investigation to officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, has therefore to be answered in the affirmative - not only Rule 7 of the SCST Rules, but also the notification dated 03.06.2002, issued by the State Government, in exercise of the power vested in it Under Section 9(1)(b) of the SCST Act. The legal position as has been declared by this Court, is in complete consonance and conformity with the postulation contained in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding, that the second determination rendered by the High Court, to the extent that the investigation carried out by a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, after 31.03.1995 and prior to the issuance of the notification dated 03.06.2002 (on 09.08.2008), would stand vitiated, has necessarily to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of State of Bihar.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the investigative process under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act). 2. Competence and legitimacy of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (SCST Rules). 3. Validity of the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 03.06.2002. 4. Retrospective effect of the notification dated 03.06.2002. 5. Impact of investigations conducted by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police between 31.03.1995 and 09.08.2008. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Investigative Process under the SCST Act: The Supreme Court examined the validity of the investigative process under the SCST Act, particularly focusing on the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, which outlines severe punishments for various offences committed against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The Court noted that the consequences under the SCST Act are more serious and drastic than those under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it was argued that the investigative process should be handled by the highest authority possible, in accordance with the Rules framed by the Central Government. 2. Competence and Legitimacy of Rule 7 of the SCST Rules: The Court affirmed the validity of Rule 7 of the SCST Rules, which mandates that an investigation under the SCST Act should be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Court held that the Central Government was competent and justified in framing this rule, considering the seriousness of the offences and the legislative intent behind the SCST Act. 3. Validity of the Notification Issued by the State of Bihar Dated 03.06.2002: The notification issued by the State of Bihar authorized officers of the rank of Police Inspector, Sub-Inspector, and Assistant Sub-Inspector to investigate cases under the SCST Act. The Court upheld this notification, stating that Section 9 of the SCST Act allows the State Government to confer powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution on any officer of the State Government. The Court concluded that the State Government was within its rights to extend these powers to officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 4. Retrospective Effect of the Notification Dated 03.06.2002: The High Court had struck down the retrospective effect of the notification dated 03.06.2002, which was intended to be effective from 31st March 1995. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the notification could not have retrospective effect because Section 23 of the SCST Act does not vest the Central Government with the authority to exercise its rule-making power with retrospective effect. 5. Impact of Investigations Conducted by Officers Below the Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police Between 31.03.1995 and 09.08.2008: The High Court had declared that investigations conducted by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police during this period would be invalid. The Supreme Court set aside this conclusion, referencing Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that an error or irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the prosecution unless it has caused a failure of justice. The Court noted that there was no evidence of prejudice or miscarriage of justice caused by investigations conducted by lower-ranking officers. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant-accused and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The Court upheld the validity of Rule 7 of the SCST Rules and the notification dated 03.06.2002 issued by the State Government. The Court also affirmed that the retrospective effect of the notification was invalid and that investigations conducted by lower-ranking officers between 31.03.1995 and 09.08.2008 were not automatically invalid unless they caused a failure of justice.
|
