JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Doongarpur, whereby he discharged the non-petitioners-Saifuddin and Murtaza under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Mr. Bishnoi contends that there is enough material on record on which a charge under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 ought to have been framed against the respondents. He urges that the learned Special Judge has discharged the respondents on flimsy grounds. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to support the order passed by the Special Judge. However, Mr. Mathur contends that this Court should not interfere in the reasoned order passed by the Special Judge. 4. In the FIR, it was alleged that the respondents No. 2 & 3 in the presence of the police personnel had abused the first informant and insulted him by calling him 'Chamatta'. Even in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., Gautam states that the two respondents had called him 'Chamatta' in the presence of the policemen. The neighbours also state that in their presence Saifuddin and Murtaza had called the complainant 'Chamatta'. There is, therefore, material on record that the two respondents had intentionally insulted and intimidated the petitioner, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, with intent to humiliate him. Since the occurrence is said to have taken place in board day light and in the presence of the neighbours and the police personnel, it cannot be said that the offence was not committed in 'public view'. The learned Special Judge has observed that the place where the complainant was insulted, was not public place. It is not the requirement of Section 3 of the Act of 1989 that the offence should be committed at a public place. What is required is that the offence should be committed in the public view. As already stated, there is material on record to show that alleged offence was committed in the public view. 5. The learned Special Judge has obviously erred in discharging the respondents in the case. The order is not sustainable in law. 6. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and the learned Special Judge is directed to hold trial of the case and decide it in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******