CRIMINAL REVISION NO.751 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 04, 2008 Yog Dutt Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Om Parkash ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: None for the parties. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order framing a charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) and Section 7(1)(b) of the Untouchability (Offence) Act, 1955. Om Parkash, Agriculture Inspector, filed a complaint against petitioner, Yog Dutt Sharma, disclosing that the complainant is an educated person and belongs to `Chamar' community (scheduled caste). Yog Dutt Sharma is his colleague and working as an Accountant in the office at Faridabad. He is Pandit by caste. The complainant further alleges that the respondent usually annoys by CRIMINAL REVISION NO.751 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: speaking and addressing the complainant and one Babu Lal, who also belongs to scheduled caste, as “Gitkal Chamar Mori Ki Int Chabara Chadha di Jamana Badal Gaya Nihi to Zutti Ganth te”. It is further averred that despite being told by colleagues to restrain himself, he continues to behave in this manner. It is, thus, alleged that the complainant knowingly and intentionally has been hurting their feelings. A complaint was also made to Director for such rude behaviour. Still, the petitioner had not restrained himself. Accordingly, the complaint was filed, which has led to summoning and framing of charge against the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order by filing this revision mainly on the ground that even as per the complaint these words are not allegedly addressed towards the complainant and apparently would convey that the same had been generally stated. It is also not disclosed in the complaint that these words were in view of the public. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Misc. M No.47591 of 2005 for quashing of the complaint. During the pendency of this petition, the charges were framed and the petition was accordingly got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order framing a charge. Reference may be made to Section 3(1)(x) of the Act to notice the essential ingredients of the offence. A perusal of the Section would show that essential ingredients of offence under said Section inter-alia are that the offending words are directly addressed to a person knowing well; that said person belongs to scheduled caste; the words used should also be in view of the public. Apart from this, it is required to be specifically mentioned as to when these CRIMINAL REVISION NO.751 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: words were used, in whose presence this happened, to make it that these words used were in view of the public. These essential ingredients are required to be averred in the complaint. In the present case, the words allegedly used were not directly addressed to the complainant. The averments in this regard reads “usually annoys by words spoken and written addressing us as “Girkal Chamar” Mori Ki Int Chabara Chadha di Jamana Badal Gaya Nihi to Zutti Ganth te”. Accordingly, there is no indication that the petitioner specifically addressed the words towards the complainant. It is also not averred that this was particularly in the presence of some persons to make the complainant to urge that the words were used in view of the public. No date, time, occasion or place is mentioned where these words were so spoken. The averments accordingly would remain vague and would also not satisfy the requirement of the Section, which creates this offence. As per Section 3 (x) of the Act, whosoever, not being a Member of Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intend to humiliate a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view is to be punished with a term as prescribed. Thus, intentional use of the words with an aim to insult and intimidate are the essential requirements of the Section. Since it is not averred in the complaint that these words were used in view of the public, one of the essential requirement of the Section, apparently is found wanting. In this regard, reference can be made to the cases of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 272, State of Rajasthan Vs. Dipti Ram, 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 765 and Amrit Lal Mardia & CRIMINAL REVISION NO.751 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar, 2007 (5) RCR (Criminal) 674. It is held in these cases that the offending words used to constitute an offence should necessarily be with an intention to insult or intimidates the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and should be at any place within public view. In Amrit Lal Mardia's case (supra), it is held that alleged insult or humiliation should be caused in a place within the public view. As per the ratio of law in these cases, if complainants are not insulted, intimidated or humiliated at a place within the public view, no offence would made out. The charge framed against the petitioner under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, thus, can not be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The petitioner, however, if otherwise liable to face trial under Section 7 of the Untouchability (offences) Act, 1955, would face the proceedings in that regard. The petition is accordingly disposed of. December 04,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE