Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this revision to give direction to the 1st respondent to register a F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint dated 18.12.1995 given by him. 2. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Castes Community and he is living in Mullipallam village within the jurisdiction of Kaduppatti police station in Madurai rural district. The respondents 1 to 7 shown in his complaint are belonging to the higher caste. There was some misunderstanding between the people belonging to the working class and the landowners of that village, and on 26.11.1995 the respondents summoned the petitioner on the basis of a complaint alleged to have been given by the 4th respondent Solai Servai. When the petitioner went there, the 2nd and 3rd respondents intimated him with intent to humiliate him as a member of Scheduled Caste and uttered the words. “TAMIL” The 1st respondent had stated “TAMIL” The 3rd respondent has also threatened him. The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 are closely known the 6th respondent Sub-Inspector of Police Kaduppatti police station and on their instigation a case was registered against the petitioner in Kaduppatti police station in Crime No.46 of 1995 for offences under Sec.75 of City Police Act and 506, I.P.C. and he was remanded to judicial custody for 15 days. They have also encroached into the land under the cultivation of the petitioner and his wife Aiyammal and their sons Mahakrishnan, Sundaram, Marimuthu and the 7th respondent started cultivating the land, when the petitioner has sent the petition dated 18.12.1995 to the 1st respondent, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. 3. The respondents have filed the counter stating the entire allegations made in the petition were found to be false and therefore no action was taken against the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown what is stated in para. 5 of the counter. It seems, the 1st respondent has forwarded the complaint dated 18.12.1995 to the Inspector of Police Samayanallur, who enquired into the matter and closed the petition saying that the entire allegations found therein were false and motivated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown what is stated in para. 5 of the counter. It seems, the 1st respondent has forwarded the complaint dated 18.12.1995 to the Inspector of Police Samayanallur, who enquired into the matter and closed the petition saying that the entire allegations found therein were false and motivated. Sec.9 of the S.C., and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 says: “Conferment of powers:(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do,- (a) for the prevention of and for copying with any offence under this Act, or (b) for any case or class or group of cases under this Act, on any district or part thereof, confer by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government the powers exercisable by a Police Officer under the Code in such district of part thereof or, as the case may be, for such case or class or group of cases, and in particular, the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons before any Special Court. (2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government shall assist the officer referred to in Sub-sec.(l) in the execution of the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme or order made thereunder.” Apart from this, Sec.14 speaks about the constitution of a Special Court and Sec. 15 for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the persons who had committed any offence under this Act. Sec.23 of the Act provides power to make rules. Accordingly, The S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 published in Gazette of India (Ext) Part II, Sec.3(l) dated 31.3.1995, came into force. Rule 5 of the said Rules speaks about information to Police Officer in-charge of a Police Station. Sec.23 of the Act provides power to make rules. Accordingly, The S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 published in Gazette of India (Ext) Part II, Sec.3(l) dated 31.3.1995, came into force. Rule 5 of the said Rules speaks about information to Police Officer in-charge of a Police Station. Sub- Rule (3) says:“Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer incharge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-rule (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer incharge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by that police station.” According to Rule 5(3) any information in writing, sent by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned should be investigated by Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 says: Investigating officer:‘(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director General Police, Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The Investigating Officer so appointed under Sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (3) The Homer Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer-in-charge of prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the Investigating Officer.” Rule 7(1) says that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by the Police Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sub-rule (2) prescribes that such investigation should be completed on top priority within 30 days and the Deputy Superintendent of Police should submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in-turn forward the same to the Director General of Police. Sub-rule (3) says, the Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary, the Director of Prosecution, the Officer incharge of the prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review at the end of every quarter the position of all investigation done by the Investigating Officer. One need not say anything more, the way in which the investigation is expected from the Police Officers concerned. The necessity to have such investigation is to preserve the Constitutional goal and the civil rights of the citizen of India. Art. 17 of the Constitution of India says:“‘un-touchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.” To enforce the above constitutional guarantee and also the protection of the right to freedom enshrined in Art. 19 of the Constitution of India, the Legislature in its wisdom has framed such law and also the rules thereunder. Whatever may be the intention of the Legislature and the law of the land, unless officers responsible for enforcement of such law are not acting in accordance with law, the very purpose of enactment of such laws will be of no use. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner, citizen of India is representing the poorest section of the society, and his family members have been driven away from their land holdings, apart from insult caused to him in the name of his caste. The petitioner has rightly sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai rural as contemplated by under Rule 5(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. Whereas, the Rules prescribed that the investigation should be done by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was sent to the Inspector who had no authority to investigate into the matter and closed the petition. It is high time that officials should act as per the rules so that the human right can be preserved better as enshrined in the Constitution of India. 6. It is high time that officials should act as per the rules so that the human right can be preserved better as enshrined in the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural, is directed to re-open the investigation and forward the complaint dated 18.12.1995 given by the petitioner to the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, who would submit his report as contemplated under Rule 7(2) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.