IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32864 of 2011 Nageshwar Mahto & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar ---------- 2/ 18thOctober 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 22.10.2008 passed by CJM, Lakhisarai in connection with Harijan P.S. Case No. 56 of 2007 whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 448, 323, 324, 504/34 of the IPC and 3(1-X) SC & ST (PA) Act. 3. Simple submission raised on behalf of the petitioners while assailing the order impugned happens to be that the investigation of the case was conducted by a police officer otherwise than Deputy S.P. and so, the investigation happens to be contrary to law. As such, no cognizance could have been taken under Section 3 (1-X) S.C, S.T (P.A) Act. With regard to other Sections covering penal law, it has been submitted that they are not challenging the same. To support his plea, they also relied upon 2011 (2) BBCJ 2 420 . 4. The learned APP fairly concedes that by the Division Bench of this Court, the controversy whatever was persisting, had already been extinguished by laying down investigation, which were conducted prior to the date of Gazette Notification that means to say before 9th August 2008 by any other police officer than Deputy S.P. happens to be contrary to law and so, submitted that the order of cognizance to that extent can be encroached upon. 5. From the written report submitted by Upendra Rai, it is evident that for an occurrence dated 13.06.2007, the report was placed on 23.06.2007 alleging inter alia that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, petitioners variously armed raided his house, abused by calling his caste name and then assaulted which led institution of Harijan P.S. Case No.56 of 2007 and from column-13 of the formal FIR, it is evident that O/C of Harijan P.S. had taken up investigation. No designation has been disclosed whether the O/C happens to be the S.I., A.S.I, Deputy S.P. However, the aforesaid anomaly is found to be 3 removed after going through the charge-sheet Annexure-4 from which it transpires that Mithileshwar Singh, S.I. of Lakhisarai P.S. happens to be the I.O. of the case and therefore, the investigation, in the aforesaid background, has been conducted by the police officer who was not at all competent under Section 7(2) of the S.C S.T (P.A) Act and so ratio decided by this Court, as referred above, is found to be fully applicable. 6. In the aforesaid background, the order of cognizance so far attracting Section 3(1-X) of S.C S.T (P.A) Act is concerned, that is found to be inconsistent with the mandate of law and therefore, the order under challenge is quashed to that extent. So far remaining sections are concerned, that will remain intact. The instant petition is allowed in terms as indicated above. perwez ( Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)