JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.— Heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case. State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by Shri D.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No 3, Shimla By means of impugned judgment passed in Case No. 2-3 of 1990, dated 13th February, 1991, the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18th June, 1989 at about 2-00 p m. Tilak Raj-complainant (PW3) was stated to be present in the Police Station East, Shimla At such point of time the respondent is stated to have caused insult on the ground of un-touchability being the member of schedule caste by appraising him as "Chamaar, Choora, Gadha, Harijan etc." On this basis a written complaint was lodged vide Ex. PW-3/A on 19th June, 1989 by the said Tilak Raj with the S.H.O. Police Station, Chhota Shimla On receipt of the written complaint, a case under section 7 of the Act came to be registered and investigation was undertaken in this case According to the complainant (PW-3), he had gone’ to Police Station on 18th June, 1989 when the aforesaid insult was hurled on account of un-touchability upon him as a member of schedule caste by the respondent According to the complainant, he had gone to Police Station to sort out the matter in relation to the demolition of the building by the respondent where PW-1 Dhani Ram had been a tenant as also PW-2 Bhoop Ram was sitting tenant. Complainant had been called by the police when the respondent was already sitting there. At this juncture, the aforesaid insult was caused by the respondent in the premises of Police Station itself. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in court and the trial Court by means of impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent, which is questioned by the State in the present appeal. 4. At this juncture, the aforesaid insult was caused by the respondent in the premises of Police Station itself. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in court and the trial Court by means of impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent, which is questioned by the State in the present appeal. 4. The learned Assistant Advocate General in support of this appeal has urged that the trial Court has fallen into error while acquitting the respondent as, according to him, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the respondent and in support of his this submission, an attempt was made to get some aid from the statements of PWs-1 to 4 recorded by the trial Court On the other hand, Shri Lau, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has controverted all the submissions made in support of this appeal and has further urged that the present case is nothing but a mere fabrication on the part of the tenant of his client and the complainant PW-3 Tilak Raj was one of the links in this chain to falsely rope in his client It was further urged by Shri Lau that had the incident taken place in the manner attributed in the complaint Ex. PW-3/A, which incident bad occurred in the Police Station itself, then there was no question of the complainant having lodged the report the next day i.e. on 19th June, 1989 as the offence was complete on 18th June, 1989 itself and being cognizable offence the lodging of the F.I.R. was a must. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent that this cleanly shows that no incident had taken place on 18th June, 1989 in the manner as alleged in the complaint Ex. PW-3/A and the complainant was only trying to support the case of the tenants of the respondent against whom the respondent has initiated action So far the pending litigation between PW-1 and PW-2 as tenants and the respondent on the other as Land-lord is concerned, this fact is not only admitted by the said PWs but is also specifically admitted by PW-4, the so called independent witness. 5. 5. A very intriguing circumstance in this case is complaint Es, PW-3/A, prima facie it seems to have been drafted on 18th June, 1989 itself and on the first page of it in its first para at 3rd line, the word mentioned is "Aaj" which has been scored off and then "Kal" is written. Whereas in the bottom of this complaint, date is firstly mentioned as 18th June, 1989 wherein 18th has been over-writ ten and converted into 19th. This makes the entire case of the complainant doubtful. Date of 18th June, 1989 is in consonance with the word “Aaj” in 3rd line supra of the complaint, Thus, it further goes to show that the complaint Ex. PW-3/A was the result of deliberation and consultation and was not spontaneous. In any event there was no occasion for the complaint having been made as according to the complainant, PW-3 Tilak Raj as well as his other witnesses, commission of offence was complete on 18th June, 1989 itself at about 2. 00 p.m that too in the premises of the Police Station. In these circumstances, it will not be safe to accept the version of PWs-1 to 4 who have appeared in support of this case, on its face value, No police official has been admittedly examined by the prosecution in support of this case, why and for what reasons, has not been explained by the prosecution. 6. Faced with this situation, Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, was not in a position to further advance his submissions in support of this appeal However, he persisted that the respondent has tried to insult the complainant on the ground of untouchability as he belongs to schedule caste, This argument has been raised simply to be rejected 7. A perusal of the oral evidence examined in this case clearly shows that the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the respondent is based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. Besides this, it is reasonable and balanced view and no fault could be pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General to take a contrary view to the one taken by the trial court. Besides this, it is reasonable and balanced view and no fault could be pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General to take a contrary view to the one taken by the trial court. It cannot be said that reading of the evidence referred to herein above clearly leads to one and irresistible conclusion pointing towards the guilt of the respondent From whatever angle the case of the prosecution may be examined, it has failed to bring borne the guilt against the respondent. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly Appeal dismissed. -