Crl. Revision No. 1869 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1869 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: April 6,2010. Main Pal ...Petitioner Versus Jai Lal ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by Main Pal-petitioner/complainant against the order 9.3.2009 passed by Judge, Special Court, Panchkula, vide which he discharged Jai Lal-respondent of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts, which emerges from the impugned order itself, so far the said offence is concerned, are that on 7.2.1999, the respondent was in the police post where the petitioner was posted as Constable. In the recreation hall, TV was on. He tried to switch off the TV but incidentally its volume increased and ultimately switched off. While entering the room he struck against the shutter of the door creating a noise, upon which the respondent repeatedly made remarks against his caste. It was nowhere contended in the complaint by the petitioner Crl. Revision No. 1869 of 2009 2 that such offence of insulting or humiliating, being a member of scheduled caste, was done in the public view, nor any such evidence was produced by him during the preliminary evidence. It was on that ground that the respondent was discharged of the said offence, by relying upon the judgments in Alka A. Mishra versus J.P. Shoke, 2003 (2) CCC 491 (Bombay), Amrit Lal Mardia and others versus Dinesh Kumar, 2007 (2) CCC 552 (Rajasthan) and Pishora Singh versus State of Punjab 2002 (2) CCC 153 (P&H). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish those judgments, nor from the preliminary evidence so produced by the petitioner, it can be said that such a prima facie case is made out against the respondent. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. April 6, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE