M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE question therefore which requires to be considered is whether the following words proved to have been uttered by the accused while addressing the complainant when he was reading a newspaper in a public place viz. a public library amount to an offence within the meaning of sec. 7 (1) (b) and sec. 7 (1) (d) of the Civil Rights Act. The words are now translated into English it would read Sale Dheda keep away you have polluted us. Sala in Gujarati in the context in which it is used is a word of insult and abuse and conveys a meaning akin to rascal. There cannot be any dispute that the word Dheda not only refers in a derogatory sense to the community of the complainant who is a Harijan that is a member of the scheduled caste but it is also a word expressing contempt towards a member of the community to whom it is addressed denoting hatred for the community whose members are considered untouchables. The next two words command the complainant to keep away. That means he should not mix with and touch anyone of the high-class Hindus and this is amply borne out by the next two words which show a sense of disgust at the action of the complainant in sitting and reading a newspaper at the public library along with other members of high-class Hindus because the words used are you have polluted us. These words uttered by the accused therefore taken in the circumstances in which they were uttered bearing in mind the party to whom they were addressed viz. a member of the scheduled caste and the place where they were used viz. a public place used as a library do show that by these words the accused not only injured or annoyed but obstructed or attempted to obstruct the complainant in exercise of his constitutional rights arising under Article 17 of the Constitution of India which Article in terms lays down that untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden and that enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. There cannot be any doubt that the conduct of the accused in addressing the complainant using the objectionable words quoted above would attract the provisions of sec. 7 (1) (b) and sec. There cannot be any doubt that the conduct of the accused in addressing the complainant using the objectionable words quoted above would attract the provisions of sec. 7 (1) (b) and sec. 7 (1) (d) of the Civil Rights Act which read thus 7 (1) Whoever (B) molests injures annoys obstructs or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to any person in the exercise of any such right or molests injures annoys or boycotts any person by reason of his having exercised any such right; or (D) insults or attempts to insult on the ground of untouchability a member of 8 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 one which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees. The accused by his aforesaid highhanded conduct has injured and annoyed as also boycotted the complainant by reason of his having exercised the said constitutional right under Article 17 of the Constitution. It is apparent that the conduct of the accused in uttering those words when the complainant was reading at a public library amounts to insulting the complainant on the ground of untouchability of the complainant by virtue of his belonging to the scheduled caste. It is indication of the practice of untouchability. The requirements therefore of sec. 7 (1) (b) and sec. 7 of the Civil Rights Act are satisfied and the prosecution has therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under the said sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. Application dismissed. .