( 1 ) THE PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED AS AN ACCUSED UNDER section 3 (1) (X) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED tribes (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (HEREINAFTER referred TO AS THE `act ONLY) ON THE BASIS OF A complaint FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER and SOME OTHERS.

( 2 ) THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE contained IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE COMPLAINT. A READING OF paragraph 5 OF THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF the COMPLAINANT AS CW-1 DOSE NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE petitioner MADE THE OBJECTIONABLE COMMENTS/remarks IN "public VIEW". THE PRESENCE OF THE CO-ACCUSED ONLY OF the PETITIONER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "public VIEW" WITHIN the MEANING OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT. IN A RECENT judgment OF THIS COURT IN DAYA BHATNAGAR and ORS. V. STATE; reported IN 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 915, THE WORDS "public VIEW" AS USED IN SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT WERE interpreted AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE "public VIEW" MEANS that PERSONS FROM PUBLIC SHOULD BE PRESENT HOWSOEVER small IN NUMBER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT.

( 3 ) IN THE CASE IN HAND, NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN the COMPLAINT, NOR THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPL