JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.5.1996 of Shri Sampatraj Sharma Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raj-samand in Sessions Case no. 86/94 whereby the learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-non-petitioner. 3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Mangilal, Jetha ram and Bheekhara m lodged a complaint at Police Station Deogarh alleging therein that the complainant Mangilal and his wife Sugna were sitting at bus stand alongwith his mother Mst. Kamla wife of Jetharam was also sitting with Sugna. Accused-non-petitioner Shri Kishore Singh hit Smt. Sugna with foot-ball thrice. When Smt. Sugna and Smt. Kamla objected the non-petitioner the non-petitioner called Smt. Sugna "chamarin". The police registered a case and after investigation filed a charge-sheet. The learned Sessions Judgeofter hearing the arguments on charge, found that by calling "chamarin" the non-petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence under section 3(i)(x) of the Act. He, therefore, discharged the non-petitioner. After going through the record I find that the only objectionable thing was that the non-petitioner called Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla "chamarin". It is not disputed that the petitioner is of the above caste. If we look into the background and the facts and circumstances available at that time it is clear that non-petitioner and others were playing foot-ball. The foot-ball during the above game incidentally hit either Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla. Smt. Sugna objected to the above. It is alleged that the non-petitioner called her "chamarin". Under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act a person is guilty if he intentionally insults or intidimates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. In . the facts of the case it was a petty matter that the foot-ball hit Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla and it cannot be said that the non-petitioner intentionally hit the foot-ball in such a way that it may hit Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla. Hence hitting of the foot-ball by the non-petitioner was not intentional but accidental. In . the facts of the case it was a petty matter that the foot-ball hit Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla and it cannot be said that the non-petitioner intentionally hit the foot-ball in such a way that it may hit Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla. Hence hitting of the foot-ball by the non-petitioner was not intentional but accidental. In this context if the non-petitioner called Smt. Sugna or Smt. Kamla "chamarin" it only shows that he did not intend to insult or intimidate Smt. Kamla or Smt. Sugna and I find no ground interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 4. There is no force in the revision petition and it, is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******