IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.900 of 2005 1. Madhukar Rai son of Ramchandra Rai. 2. Chinta Tiwari @ Chinta Mani Tiwary son of Lal Kishun Tiwari 3. Narayan Yadav son of Laurik Yadav (All resident of vill- Bilaspur, P.S. Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran) ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Satan Dhanikar S/o late Lagan Dhanikar r/o Vill. Bilaspur, P.S.Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran. --- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ----------- 12. 05.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the order 04.10.2005, passed by the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bettiah under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Sessions Trial no. 81 of 2004 ( State of Bihar vs. Madhukar Rai & Ors.), whereby the application seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short „The Act‟) was considered and dismissed. The informant Satan Ram Dharikar filed an F.I.R. alleging therein that on 24.03.2002, the accused persons forcibly tried to take work from him. On his refusal he was assaulted by fists, slaps and danda, and also humiliated by uttering “ Sala harijan chamar ka mann Barh Gaya Hai, Kam Karne Ko Kahato Sala Inkar Karta Hai”. On these allegations the F.I.R. was instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act . It may be pointed out here that other Sections of the Penal Code attracted in the present case are triable by the Magistrate except the present Section punishable under the aforesaid Act which is exclusively triable by the 2 special Court. The application of the petitioner filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly considered by the learned Court below. Considering the allegation appearing from the F.I.R. and duly supported from the police report (case diary), it was found that the aforesaid allegation was prima facie substantiated. Learned trial Court has also noticed the injury allegedly sustained by the informant at the hands of accused(s). On a consideration of entire materials reflecting from the record, it was found that there was sufficient materials on record to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Dharikar has been incorporated in the chapter/schedule by the Central Government by reason of a notification dated 17.12.2002, whereby part III of the schedule incorporated in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, issued in terms of Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India was updated. It is, thus, contended that on the date of occurrence the informant cannot be said to be a member of the scheduled caste. This Court finds from the allegation that he has described himself firstly as Harijan Dharikar. Part III of the said order sets out the following castes:- 1. Bantar 2. Bauri 3. Bhogta 4. Bhuiya 5. Bhumji 6. Chamar, Mochi, Chamar-Rabidas, Chamar-Rohidas, Charmarkar. 7. Chaupal 8. Dabgar 9. Dhobi,Rajak 10. Dom Dhangad, Bansophor, Dharikar, Dhakar, Domra. 11. Dusadh, Dhari, Dharhi. 3 12. Ghasi 13. Halalkhor 14. Hari,Mehar, Bhangi 15. Kanjar 16. Kurariar 17. Lalbegi 18. Musahar 19. Nat 20. Pan,Sawasi,Panr 21. Pasi 22. Rajwar 23. Turi.” Item 10 of the said part sets out the caste generally know as Dom. Other species of the caste have been incorporated in the said item. The informant, as per the prosecution case, in no uncertain terms has described himself as Harizan. Dharikar is of the species of Dom. It is not the petitioners case that prior to such insertion in part III of the said order Dharikar was enlisted in any other category. I have minutely gone through the allegations and materials available on record which indicate that on refusal to obey the command, he was assaulted and humiliated uttering that he belonged to the scheduled caste . At the stage of framing of charge Court below has to prima facie satisfy itself that allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the supporting materials are adequate for proceeding with the trial. Having regard to the materials available on record and in view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)