C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE all these quash proceedings arise out of the same P. R. C. they are being disposed of by a Common Order. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners in these petitions, having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit theft of paddy crop in the fields of Gara Israil and Nakka vemaiah, had committed theft of their paddy, and abused Gara Israil and Nakka Vemaiah, who belong to Scheduled Caste community, in their caste name and insulted them in public view and hence, are liable for punishment for offences under Sections 143 and 379 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (the Act ). ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, since A-1 to A-62, even according to the charge-sheet, are members of Scheduled Caste community, proceedings against A-1 to A-62 under the act are liable to be quashed. It is contended that since A-63 to A-66, are leaders their rivals got a false complaint filed against them and that that fact is evident because the charge-sheet does not show who among 66 accused uttered the offending words and since all the accused could not have, in chorus, abused Gara Israil and Nakka vemaiah, invoking their caste name. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) IN the cause title of the charge-sheet a-1 to A-62 are described as "malas" by caste, and as residents of Mutlur village. As per Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act if a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes, intentionally insults or intimidates, with intent to humiliate, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribes in any place within public view, he is liable for imprisonment which shall not be less than six months, and upto to a maximum period of five years, and with fine. So it is clear that if the person who insults or intimidates the victims also belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, he would not be committing an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. So it is clear that if the person who insults or intimidates the victims also belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, he would not be committing an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. ( 4 ) SINCE A-1 to A-62 even as per the charge-sheet are members of a Scheduled caste community i. e. , Mala, prosecution against them for an offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is unsustainable and hence, the charge-sheet against A-1 to a-62 for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the act is liable to be quashed and hence is quashed. ( 5 ) AS rightly contended by Sri e. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 3342 of 2003 (i. e. , A-63 to A-66) the charge is bald and does not state who among the 66 persons named as accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. A plain reading of the charge-sheet shows that all the accused abused the alleged victims. As rightly contended by the learned counsel it is not possible to believe that all accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. So prima facie prosecution for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the act is an abuse of process of law. ( 6 ) ALL these apart the allegations in the charge-sheet show that Sri K. V. Chalapathi rao, Inspector of Police, Guntur Rural (L. W. 13), took up investigation, in the case and Sri S. D. Goutham, Sub- Divisional police Officer, Guntur Rural (L. W. 14), verified the investigation made by L. W. 13. So it is clear that the investigation in this case was not conducted by the Sub- divisional Police Officer. ( 7 ) RULE 7 of the Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) rules 1995 (the Rules) mandates that offences committed under the provisions of the Act shall be investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of a Deputy superintendent of Police. It also lays down that the Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director general of Police, Superintendent of Police, after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. It also lays down that the Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director general of Police, Superintendent of Police, after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case. The said Rule obviously is made to prevent false implications, and since a minimum punishment of six months imprisonment is prescribed by the Act for the offences there under. Since the word used in Rule 7 of the rules is "shall", investigation, if done by an officer below the rank of a Deputy superintendent of Police, would get vitiated. Since the allegations in the charge-sheet show that the investigation in this case was done by the Inspector of Police, but not the sub-Divisional Police Officer as mandated by Rule 7 of the Rules, and since verification of investigation made by the Inspector of police by the Deputy Superintendent of police, by no stretch of imagination, would amount to compliance with the mandate given by Rule 7 of the Rules, charge-sheet for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the act, against A-63 to A-66 also is liable to be and hence is quashed. ( 8 ) THE other offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143 and 379 i PC. In view of the allegations in the chargesheet, i find no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in respect of those offences. ( 9 ) FOR the above reasons the petitions are partly allowed. Proceedings in PRC no. 9 of 2003 against all the petitioners for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act only are quashed. Prayer for quashing the charge-sheet for the other offences alleged is dismissed. The Magistrate shall convert p. R. C. No. 9 of 2003 into a C. C. and dispose of the same in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.