MOHAPATRA, J.

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore dismissing Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2003 filed against the order dated 6.01.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in I.C.C. No. 62 of 2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) The opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Damanjodi Police Station alleging therein that on 18.1.2002 he and some other office bearers of NALCO Employees Union had gone to the office of the petitioner, but they were asked to go out and to meet the C.M.D. It is further alleged in the F.I.R, that the petitioner told the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 has got the service by virtue of a caste certificate. Basing on such F.I.R. investigation was taken up and final form was submitted stating that the case is a false one. After receipt of the final form the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 and on receipt of notice, a protest petition was filed which was registered as I.C.C. No. 62 of 2002. After the protest petition was filed, inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. was taken up and during such inquiry three witnesses including the informant/complainant opposite party No. 2 were examined and thereafter the learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 6.1.2003 took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and ST. (P.A.) Act. Challenging the said order the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in a revision and the said revision having been dismissed, the present application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. has been filed.

(3.) Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the orders passed by both the Courts below solely on the ground that even accepting the complaint allegation to be true, no offence under Section 3(l)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act is made out. According to Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner the only statement alleged to be made by the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 2 has entered into service on the basis of a Scheduled Caste certificate. Even accepting that such a statement was made by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that by making such a statement, the petitioner has intended to insult or insulted the opposite party No. 2. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of MA. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayanar and another.

(4.) On perusal of orders of both the Courts below, it appears that on 18.-1.2002 at about 8.45 A.M. when the complainant/informant along with other union leaders went to the petitioner to put forth some grievance, the petitioner is alleged to have scolded him saying that he is serving in NALCO showing a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate. The question that arises for consideration is whether such a statement even if admittedly made by the petitioner constitute an offence for which cognizance has been taken or not. In the case of MA. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayanar (supra) the complainant was a member of Kerala Legislative Assembly and belonging to Scheduled Caste known as Pathiyan and practising as a doctor by profession owing allegiance to the Indian National Congress (I). He filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and in his complaint he alleged that respondent No. 1 therein belongs to Nair community which is not a Scheduled Caste and respondent No. 1 was a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxists). At the relevant time the Respondent No. 1 was holding the office of Chief Minister of the State of Kerala and was contesting bye-election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. A convention of the Left Democratic Front was convened on September 20, 1996 at the Town Bank auditorium in which Respondent No. 1 delivered a speech and in the said speech Respondent No. 1 emphasized the fact that the Complainant was a Harijan and made derogatory remarks about the complainant. The following was the statement made during such convention. There is an MLA Kuttappan, that Harijan MLA, he climbed over the table and was dancing. Is this the democratic manners of Antony The Apex Court in the said decision accepting that the Respondent No.1 made such a statement therein held as follows: Learned counsel for the appellant did not advance any argument challenging the above finding of the High Court. We have also seriously considered the matter and we are satisfied that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Section-7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Acts is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Assuming respondent No.1 uttered the words imputed to him by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that by uttering those words he either insulted or attemp-ted to insult the appellant on the ground of untouchability.

(5.) Coming to the facts of the present case, even if it is accepted that the petitioner made a statement that the opposite party No. 2 is in NALCO service by virtue of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate, there appears to be no intention for an attempt to insult the complainant on the ground of untoucha-bility. In my view, the decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the case also fits into the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case. Though this application is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and is in the nature of a second revision and the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining such application is limited, since a question of law on the given facts was urged, the same has been entertained.

(6.) In view of the findings above, the CRLMC is allowed and the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Petition allowed.