IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28294 of 2011 Anil Kumar, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Verma, Resident of Mohalla Seoganj, PS Ara Town, District Bhojpur ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Kumar Ravindra, Son of Sunil Kant Upadhaya, Block Development Officer, Shahpur, District Bhojpur ---- Opposite Parties With Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 Anil Kumar, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Verma, Resident of Mohalla Seoganj, PS Ara Town, District Bhojpur ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Kumar Ravindra, Son of Sunil Kant Upadhaya, Block Development Officer, Shahpur, District Bhojpur ---- Opposite Parties ----------- 2 7.9.2011 Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 was dismissed on 10.3.2011 as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. A restoration application being Cr. Misc. No. 28294 of 2011 has been filed to restore Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 to its original file. The restoration application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 is restored to its original file. Now the matter is being heard on merit. Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order dated 8.12.2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2005 by which cognizance was taken under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and 31(4) of the S.C./S.T. Act. The ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as per Rule 7 of The Scheduled Caste and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, there is a provision that investigation of a case 2 under this Act shall be done by a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Rule came into effect in the year 1995. The present case has been filed in 2005 and cognizance was taken on 8.12.2006. In the mean time, a notification was issued by the State Government on 3.6.2002 under Section 9 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was challenged in this Court and decided by a Division Bench holding that the notification was not ultra vires of the Act. It is further held that the notification would be effective from the date on which it was published in the official gazette i.e. from 9th of August, 2008. This notification envisages that any officer could investigate a case under the S.C./S.T. Act. From the facts aforesaid, this Court finds that in fact the investigation was made by the Sub-inspector which is not permissible in accordance with law, as the notification amending the provisions of Rule 7 was effective from a later date. Since the opposite party no. 2 has not appeared in this case, this Court is quashing the order of cognizance dated 8.12.2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 2005 with a direction to the Special Court to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 and pass orders in accordance with the observations aforesaid and the judgment reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 1097. Cr. Misc. No. 33978 of 2007 is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)