JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition, the prayer of the petitioners is that the part of the order dated April 13, 1992, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, whereby cognizance was also taken against them under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, `the Act, 1989'), be quashed. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, necessary facts may be given. For an incident, which took place at 5 p.m., on December 30, 1991, a report came to be lodged at Police Station, Pragpura, District Jaipur by Smt. Mishri. On this report, Crime No. 190/91 was registered under Section 147,148, 149, 323, 302 and 341, IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323 and 34, IPC, in the Court of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli. The prosecution story about the incident, as per the report, Is that when Smt. Mishri (informant) was taking her cattle for drinking water, then, in the way, the accused- petitioners and other persons named in the FIR, met her and prevented her from taking the cattle through the way on the ground that if the cattle were taken through the way, they would damage the crop. Thereupon, they started bearing her and, on her cry, Prahlad, Ramswaroop, Suraj and Smt. Suwa came to rescue her and they were also assaulted with lathis. The incident was seen by Smt. Badami and Smt. Kesari. 3. After registration of the case, an application was moved on behalf of Smt. Mishri, with a prayer to take cognizance against other persons, who were left out by the police and also to take cognizance for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and this petition is restricted to this part of the order only. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel that if the prosecution version was taken on its face value, then too, the offence under section 3(2) (v) of the Act, 1989 was not made out. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel that if the prosecution version was taken on its face value, then too, the offence under section 3(2) (v) of the Act, 1989 was not made out. Learned counsel further contended that as per incident, the assault was given to Smt. Mishri, as she was taking the cattle through the way and the accused-persons did not want to allow her as, they would damage their crop. It was also contended that other persons were assaulted, when they came to rescue Smt. Mishri. Learned counsel argued that the incident did not take place in the manner, as stated by the prosecution, as it had taken place in the field of the accused. That the petitioner Leela also sustained injuries in the incident, including an injury on his head, which resulted in facture of the skull bone as such, the members of the complainant-party were aggressors. In any case, learned counsel argued that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance for the offence under section 3(2) (v) of the Act, 1989 deserves to be quashed. According to the learned counsel, if cognizance is taken for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act, then the case is to be committed to the Special Court constituted to try the cases under the Act, otherwise the case would be committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Magistrate. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. At the out-set, I may state that, at this stage, no opinion can be expressed about the origin of the fight and the manner, in which the incident took place and whether the members of the complainant-party were aggressors. All these questions shall be enquired into the decided by the trial Court, after recording the evidence. However, the contention of the learned counsel, challenging the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act, has force. All these questions shall be enquired into the decided by the trial Court, after recording the evidence. However, the contention of the learned counsel, challenging the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act, has force. S. 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 reads as under:- "(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a member of a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;" By virtue of this provision, the offence/offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property, if committed on the ground that such person is a member of the SC or ST or such property belongs to such member, then the same has been made punishable in a aggravated form with imprisonment for life and with fine. They are further subject to the special provision pertaining to Special Court, Probation, anticipatory bail etc. The essence of this provision is that the person committing the offence should commit such offence against a person or property, because such person happens to be a member of SC/ST or such property belongs to him. To put it in other words, the intention of the offender is to commit the offence against the person on the ground that such person happens to be a member of SC/ST or such property belongs to him. In the assault is given to a person not because he is a member of SC/ST or an offence is committed against his property, not because the property belongs to a member of SC/ST, then this provision is not attracted and the offender shall be punished as per the Indian Penal Code. Aggravated form of punishment has been provided, if the offence is committed, on the ground that the person is a member of SC/ST or the property belongs to him. 6. Aggravated form of punishment has been provided, if the offence is committed, on the ground that the person is a member of SC/ST or the property belongs to him. 6. If the aforesaid test is applied on the facts of the case, then it is clear that the assault to Smt. Mishri was given, because she wanted to take her cattle through the way, for which, the accused persons prevented her, on the ground that their crop shall be damaged. She was not assaulted on the ground that she was a member of SC/ST. Similarly, the deceased was not assaulted, because he was a member of SC/ST. He was assaulted, because he came to help Smt. Mishri. The averments made in the FIR are quite clear on this fact and the statements of the witnesses recorded subsequently also do not made out a case that the deceased was assaulted, because he was a member of SC/ST. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed serious error in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Act on the application of the complainant. It may also be stated that the police did not submit the charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence. 7. Consequently, I allow this petition and quash the order of the learned Magistrate, so far as it relates to taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case be sent back to the learned Magistrate for committing it to the proper Court. The record be sent back immediately.Petition allowed. *******