Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus VISWANADULA CHETTI BABU ETC.

Decided
30 December 2010
Judges listed
H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 868 · 2010 INSC 895
Also cited as
  • (2010) 15 SCC 103 (9 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 869, margin A

Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, framed under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under:

p. 869, margin A

"7. Investigating Officer (1) An offence·committed under thE! Act shall be investigated by a police offiGer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time.

p. 869, margin B

(2) The investigating officer so appointed under subrule(1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.

p. 869, margin D

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer."

p. 869, margin E

A bare perusal of the Rule would reveal that the State Government/the Director General of Police/ SuperintE!ndent of Police after taking into account the experience etc. of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall appoint him as the Investigating Officer in cases under the above Act. Sub-rule (3) further provides that the Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the Government and other officers in charge shall review the working of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the investigations done by him at the end of every quarter. It is therefore apparent that authority to investigate has to be

pp. 869–870, margin G

conferred on a specified officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

p. 870, margin A

We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the clear mandate of the Rules, it was only a specified Deputy

p. 870, margin B

Superintendent of Police who could investigate an offence under the Act. An investigation done by any officer below that rank and not specified as per Rule 7 would not be entitled to investigate any such offence. In the present matter the investigation has been made by an officer of the raf!k of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. This was not permissible. We endorse the judgment of the High Court in this respect.

p. 870, margin B

The appeals stand dismissed. R.P. Appeals dismissed.

p. 870, margin D