To constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, an insult must directly relate to 'untouchability'.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed, assailing the impugned order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor u/s 203 of the Cr.P.C. The Revision petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.1953/2012 filed against one Mr.Tomy Chacko alleging the offence punishable u/s 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (for short 'the Act').

The case of the complainant is as follows:

2. The complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste and also a practising lawyer. The accused is working as District Scheduled Caste Development Officer at Kakkanadu. On 27/09/2012, the Revision petitioner had submitted an application before the Public Information Officer of the office of the accused. In response to that application, accused sent a reply letter answering the query put by the Revision petitioner. In that reply letter, the accused has addressed the complainant by stating his name at four places. According to the Revision petitioner/complainant, mentioning his name in the reply notice amounts to an 'insult' within the purview of Sec.7(i) (d) of the Act and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under the said Section.

3. After recording the sworn statement of the Revision petitioner, the case was posted for enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. During the enquiry stage, no witnesses have been examined. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on a finding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The learned Magistrate found that, in order to attract an offence u/s 7(i)(d) of the Act, the “insult” must be an act on the ground of “untouchability”. There is no allegation or evidence to establish that the mentioning of his name was on the ground of untouchability. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. The Revision petitioner himself appeared in person and advanced arguments. The Revision petitioner submits that the allegations in the complaint itself prima facie disclose the offence u/s 7(1)(d) of the Act. The allegations were made attracting the offence under Sec. 7(1)(d) read with Section 12 of the Act; but the court below seems to have decided the issue after reading Sec.7(1)(d) of the Act only. Every act of insult or attempt to insult, would receive the presumption under Sec.12 of the Act and unless the contrary is proved, the court shall presume that such an act was committed on 'untouchability'. The court below ought to have read Sections 7 (1)(d) and 12 conjointly. Therefore, the court below ought to have taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 12 of the Act.

5. In view of the arguments advanced before this Court, the point to be considered is whether the allegations disclose the offence u/s 7(1)(d) of the Act. The grievance of the Revision petitioner/complainant is that the accused stated his name at four places in the letter with an intention to insult him. It is very clear from the context of the letter of the accused that he was purposefully insulting the Revision petitioner in a retaliatory and defiant manner. The out of context calling of the Revision petitioner by name in the letter at four places was unnecessary and awkward, so was definitely an insult. According to him, the accused does not have equal or more status than him and by referring his name, the accused has insulted him intentionally and therefore, he has committed the offence punishable u/s Sec.7(1)(d) of the Act, which reads as follows:

"Whoever insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of "untouchability", a member of a Scheduled Caste; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not

more than five hundred rupees."

On a careful analysis of the ingredients of the above Section, it could be seen that to attract an offence u/s 7(1)(d), the 'insult' must be on the ground of “untouchability” ie., un