IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6054 of 2009 1. Bharat Rai S/o Jamadar Rai 2. Kishun Rai S/o Bharat Rai 3. Harindra Rai S/o Bharat Rai All resident of village Baikunthpur P.S. Baikunthpur Dist.Gopalganj Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR Opposite party ----------- 02 16.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Informant and the State. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence under Sections 341,323,504,379/34 of the Penal Code as also under section 3(i) (X) of the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Prevention of Atrocities Act’). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the offences alleged in the first information report are not made out as the offences alleged under the Penal Code it is submitted that on account of land dispute the allegations have been made only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners. So far the allegation under section 3(i) (X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is concerned the offences alleged is not said to have been committed by the petitioners in public view. In the circumstances according to the learned counsel offence is not made out. In support of submission that the offence under section 3(i) (X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is not made out learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad Singh & another vs. The State of Bihar & another reported in 2005(3) PLJR 744 and submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have abused the - 2 - informant at the front of his residence which is not a public place and the witnesses who came after hearing alarm only saw petitioners’ snatching silver chain as also taking out money from the pocket of the informant. The aforesaid submission has been noted with a view to reject the submission as in the bottom of the first information report, the names of the witnesses have been indicated and they are witnesses of the entire occurrence. The first part of the occurrence when the petitioners abused the informant whereafter he raised alarm and hearing the alarm other witnesses came and saw the petitioners making good their escape snatching silver chain and money from the informant. In view of the aforesaid narration in the first information report I am satisfied that the offence alleged is made out against the petitioners and this application is rejected. Before parting with this order, this Court will like to consider one more submission of the learned counsel that in view of provision contained in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1995, it is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is to investigate the allegations but from the first information report, it appears that the Officer Incharge of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, P.S. Hajipur who registered the case authorized the Station House Officer of Baikunthpur police station in the district of Gopalganj where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place to investigate the case. The investigation by the Officer Incharge who is in the rank of the Sub Inspector is contrary to the provision of the Rules. The question of illegality of the investigation can only be considered after - 3 - charge sheet /final form is filed by the Investigating Agency and not at this stage. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. shahid (V.N.Sinha, J)