ORDER :

1. The present revision, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the revision petitioner against the impugned docket order, dated 04.01.2021, passed in C.F.No.126 of 2020, by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the learned Special Sessions Judge, dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 2 to 11 herein.

2. The relevant facts which led to filing of the present revision are that the revision petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 11. It is alleged by the revision petitioner in the complaint that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) community and that the respondents have maintained discrimination on the revision petitioner, as they did not consider his representation for rectification of his Date of Birth in his service register. It is further alleged that he filed W.A.No.622 of 2018, wherein this Court directed the Principal Secretary to Government to consider his representation, however, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court. It is further alleged that the respondents neglected their legitimate duties as public servants and did not rectify his Date of Birth and as such they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (q) (r) and 4 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”) by referring the matter to Miryalaguda Town Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

3. After recording the sworn statements of the revision petitioner and other two witnesses, the learned Special Sessions Judge dismissed the said private complaint. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the order of the Court below is neither just nor sustainable either in law or on facts. It is further submitted that the Court below erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that no prima facie case is made out and as such the said order needs to be set aside. It is also submitted that the Court below passed the impugned order without considering the contention of the petitioner that he made several representations to the respondent authorities to rectify his Date of Birth in his service record as per the directions of this Court in W.A.No.622 of 2018. It is further submitted that the Court below ought to have seen that the respondents did not take any steps to rectify the Date of Birth of the revision petitioner and kept the representations pending for more than 11 months only to humiliate him one way or the other as he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) community, thereby committed the offence under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Court below ought to have seen that there is a willful and negligent act on the part of the respondents in not considering the representations of the revision petitioner. It is also submitted that the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner to defend his case and without considering the reasons mentioned by the revision petitioner, dismissed the complaint, which is arbitrary and contrary to law and as such the impugned order needs to be set aside.

6. By filing Counter-affidavit, it is contended by the respondents that initially the revision petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II on 29.06.1984 in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department and in the service register, the name of the revision petitioner was initially entered as K.Somulu and it was later changed as K.Shyam Sundar as per A.P. Gazette Notification No.HSE/49, dated 01.03.1990; that his date of entry into service was entered as 29.06.1984 and his date of birth as 18.08.1960; that subsequent promotions were given to the revisi