A. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE two applicants were facing trial for the charges under Sections 376, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, on a case registered by Police Station Malanpur, district Bhind. ( 2 ) DURING the course of the trial, when prosecutrix Smt. Gayitri Devi (PW. 1) was being examined in the Court, the trial Court on 8-1-1994 stopped further cross-examination of the prosecutrix and passed the impugned order directing therein that an additional charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'act') be also framed. The trial Court jumped over the matter and framed additional charge on 8-1-1994 under the Special Act and directed to proceed with the trial from that stage. ( 3 ) THE applicants are aggrieved by this order on the ground that the trial Court had no material at the stage when additional charge was framed that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe and the charge framed under Section 3 (1) (xi) of, the Act was uncalled for,improper and against the provisions of law. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State and perusal of the record, it appears that PWs Gayitri Devi was examined by the prosecution in Court. She was being cross-examined by the counsel for the applicants/accused and during the course of cross-examination she admitted that she belonged to an upper casts of 'gupta'. She was the daughter of one Munnalal Gupta. She was married to one, Ashok Kumar Gupta six years back. She had been living as wife of Ashok Kumar Gupta for sometime, thereafter some dispute arose between them and, according to her statement, her husband had filed a case against her. She was educated lady up to High School. At that stage the trial Court stopped the cross-examination and directed that the case be listed on any other date. The next date was 22-1-94. The trial Court observed on the order-sheet dated 8-1-94 that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Castes and, therefore, when at the earlier stage the charges were framed, non-framing of charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act was a clerical mistake. The next date was 22-1-94. The trial Court observed on the order-sheet dated 8-1-94 that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Castes and, therefore, when at the earlier stage the charges were framed, non-framing of charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act was a clerical mistake. The trial Court further observed that the prosecutrix had lodged a F. I. R. claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) as aforesaid was necessary and without ascertaining the fact that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix remained a member of the Scheduled Caste, the charges were framed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argued that the trial Court had no authority to presume that the prosecutrix was a member of the Scheduled Caste unless this fact was established on record atleast prima facie. According to own statement of Smt. Gayitri Devi, she was a member of upper caste of 'gupta'; she was married in 'gupta' family, and there was no statement on record to show that the prosecutrix had married the present alleged husband Ramprakash Jatav, after getting her marriage dissolved with Ashok Kumar Gupta. Unless this fact is proved, mere saying by the prosecutrix that she was married to Ramprakash Jatav without taking divorce from her earlier husband, cannot be taken to be a fact in law. The burden to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Caste was upon the prosecution, for which necessary enquiry ought to have been made by the trial Court and only then, after recording a finding that the prosecutrix had become a member of Scheduled Caste, the charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act could have been framed. Without adopting the proper procedure, the trial Court simply, jumped over the matter, assuming the fact and presuming the prosecutrix to be a member of Scheduled Caste without any material on record. The procedure adopted by the trial Court was uncalled for and against the provisions of the Code. During the course of trial, at any stage, if any additional charge was to be framed even prima facie necessary, material had to be brought on record and the trial should have been directed to start de novo. The procedure adopted by the trial Court was uncalled for and against the provisions of the Code. During the course of trial, at any stage, if any additional charge was to be framed even prima facie necessary, material had to be brought on record and the trial should have been directed to start de novo. The trial Court neither ascertained the fact nor started the trial de novo rather framed the additional charge and started the trial from the stage where it was left over. The two procedures adopted by the trial Court were not in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) THE mere fact that the F. I. R. was lodged claiming the prosecutrix to be a member of Scheduled Caste was not a sufficient material to presume that the charge under Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act was called for. If the trial Court felt that the additional charge was necessary, then an enquiry was imperative for holding the prosecutrix to have become a member of Scheduled Caste at the time of incident. Without such a finding no additional charge could be framed. ( 7 ) THE result is that the additional charge framed by the trial Court is uncalled for and without any basis. The trial started by the trial Court on assumption shall certainly vitiate the entire proceeding. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-1-1994 and the additional charge framed under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act are hereby quashed. ( 8 ) IT is directed that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial from where it was left over on 8-1-1994. It is observed that if the trial Court feels that an enquiry is necessary to find out whether the prosecutrix had become a member of the Scheduled Caste on the date of incident, then the trial Court will adopt the procedure prescribed by law to ascertain the fact and record a clear finding on that point and then to proceed with the trial after framing additional charge, as required in the Act. Without recording such finding, additional charge cannot be framed. Without recording such finding, additional charge cannot be framed. The two courses are now open to the trial Court either to proceed with the trial from the stage from where it was left over withoutframing additional charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) or hold an enquiry and then to proceed in accordance with law after framing additional charge under the said Section, as required by law. ( 9 ) THE trial Court is further directed to decide the course open to law. The record shall be sent to the trial Court immediately, which will proceed with the matter, in the light of the observations made above, and conclude the same at the earliest. Petition allowed. .