AMARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) IN these petitions common question of law has arisen for decision. It is, therefore, proper that they should be disposed of by a common order.
(2.) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioners. These petitions have been filed against the following orders passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara : (1) Order dated 9.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994. (2) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 48/1994. (3) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 11/1994. (4) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/1994. (5) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 95/1994. (6) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 56/1994. (7) Order dated 22.12.1994 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994. (8) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 49/1994. (9) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 44/1994. By the above mentioned order, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, declined to treat the report submitted by the Police officers after conducting investigations and, directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to get the investigations done again by a Police Officer, competent to conduct investigations.
(3.) THE grounds on which the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to treat the reports submitted before him as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code :- (a) the investigations were substantially conducted by Head Constables, who are not empowered to conduct investigations into cognizable offence and therefore the investigations were void, (b) the site plans did not mention the names of the persons who witnessed the commission of offences, (c) the reports were not in the handwriting of the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station and, there was violation of the provisions of Rule 1.8.3 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, and (d) there was breach of the provisions of Rule 3.8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.;