( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. ( 2 ) APPELLANT in Criminal Appeal No. 443/ s9 has been convicted under S. 3 (1) (4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Act for short)and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ -. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 14/01 has been convicted under S. 3 (1) (10) of the Act and sentenced to undergo six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/ -. Appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 649/98 has been convicted under S. 3 (1) (x)of the Act and S. 323, I. P. C. and sentanced to six months S. I. and fine of Rs. 700/-respectively. ( 3 ) SHORT facts of the case in Criminal appeal No. 443/99 are that complainant lodged a report that Government had provided him some land on Patta which he used to till. Appellant forcefully encroached upon the same and has sown Soyabean. On objection from complainant, appellant said "bhaag Ja Basod Nahin to Maaroonga" and started quarrelling. Facts of the case in Criminal Appeal No. 14/01 are that complainant is a member of scheduled Castes. On 9-9-1999 at 6 in the evening complainant went on Gagroo Ghat river to take bath and started bathing on the upper side of the river and downside of which appellants were also bathing. Appellants told the complainant that he belongs to "mehtar" (Scheduled Caste) community, therefore he should not take bath on the upper side. Complainant objected and on this appellants-Amar Singh and Khilan singh started abusing and appellant-Khilan singh gave a Farsa blow to him which caused him injury in his right hand finger. In Criminal Appeal No. 649/98 complainant-Champa used to do "harvai" at the field of Sarpanch Gulab Singh. Sarpanch was sitting in the temple where appellant was also sitting. When Champa came on the temple to call the Sarpanch at the instance of his wife, appellant insulted him, abused him and slapped him. One Bhanwarial came to intervene who was also slapped by the appellant. Incident was witnessed by Gyan singh, Devendra Singh etc. 3a. Appellants have filed these appeals against their conviction and sentence. When Champa came on the temple to call the Sarpanch at the instance of his wife, appellant insulted him, abused him and slapped him. One Bhanwarial came to intervene who was also slapped by the appellant. Incident was witnessed by Gyan singh, Devendra Singh etc. 3a. Appellants have filed these appeals against their conviction and sentence. In all the three appeals, common question has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that in all the three cases investigation was not done by an officer who was of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police or higher as required under R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision in the case of Chinnasamy v. State, 2000 cri LJ 956 and also on a decision of this high Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 6/98 (Gwalior Bench) (Irfan v. State of M. P.)on 2-12-2004 in which this High Court has held that if the investigation is not carried out as per R. 7 of the SC/st (Prevention of atrocities) Act, it will vitiate the entire trial and the conviction cannot be maintained. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent has not seriously opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that in Criminal appeal No. 443/99 and Criminal Appeal No. 649/98, J. P. Morya who was ASI has conducted the investigation. In criminal appeal no. 14/01 main investigation was conducted by IP. W. 5 Randhir Singh Kushwaha who was working as A. S. I. Therefore from the facts on record it is clear that investigation was not conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 (1) of the Scheduled Caste scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Rules 1995. Rule 7 (1) provides as under :- "an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 (1) provides as under :- "an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 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 and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible: time. These rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of rule making power conferred under Section 23 of the Act. The Central Government has been authorised under Section 23 (1) of the Act to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It has been specifically mentioned under Rule 7 that officer shall be appointed either by the State Government or Director general of Police or Superintendent of Police and he shall not be below the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police. While appointing the officer they will take into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time. It is clear that the Act has been enacted by the parliament to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes to provide for special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. It is a beneficiary legislation in favour of a class which belongs to downtrodden society. It has been experienced that despite the various measures taken to improve the socio economic conditions of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various of-fences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property and under these circumstances this special enactment has been made. Therefore, it is necessary that the provisions of the Act and rules should be followed strictly and in such cases investigation should be conducted by police officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police. This special rule has a purpose. Therefore, if the Rules are not followed strictly by the investigating agencies, purposes of the Act cannot be achieved. This special rule has a purpose. Therefore, if the Rules are not followed strictly by the investigating agencies, purposes of the Act cannot be achieved. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant carries weight. There is no compliance of provisions of Rule 7. Nature of the rule is mandatory. Investigation has not been conducted by deputy Superintendent of Police either appointed by the State Government of Director General of Police or Superintendent of police. There is no evidence to this effect in the cases and when the investigation has not been done by an authorised or appointed officer, the entire investigation is vitiated and on this ground conviction of the appellants cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent State could not satisfy the compliance of the aforesaid rule in the cases and also could not explain how the trial is legal, when the proper investigation is not done by the Dy. Superintendent of Police. " ( 6 ) THUS, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the effect of Rule 7 (1) as discussed above. These appeals are allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside and appellants are acquitted from the charges. A copy of this order be forwarded to the principal Secretary Deptt. of Home State of m. P. and Director General of Police for issuance of necessary instruction in this regard to the Superintendent of Police of every district in Madhya Pradesh. Appeal allowed. .