Judgment : Per P. MURGESEN, J. 1. This Appeal has been field by the accused against the judgment dated 9.10.1999 rendered in S.C. No. 6 of 1998 by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. 2. The case of prosecution is as follows : (i) P.W. 1 is a resident of Keezhakurichi. He belongs to Hindu ‘Paraiyar‘ Community. The accused belongs to Hindu ‘Velalar‘ Community. On 19.2.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 along with his friend Chinnadurai (P.W.2) was proceeding in Herohonda bike and when they were nearing Mannarkudi -Pattukottai main road, the first accused stopped the vehicle and scolded him and assaulted him. At, that time, P.Ws. 3 and 5 were present at the scene of occurrence. So, P.W.1 went to Madukkur Police Station and gave a Complaint, where he was directed to approach PCR wing. Then he sent the Complaint by post to PCR wing. (ii) P.W.4, received the Complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 83 of 1995 under Sections 341, 323, I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. The first information report is Ex.P.2 Then it was dispatched to Madukkur Police Station for further investigation. (iii) Then, P.W.5 Inspector, Madukkur Police Station took up the case for further investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.3 He recorded the statements of Senthamizh Selvan, Chinnadurai, Arputham, Jeyaraman, Ramamoorthy and P. Ramamoorthy. On 24.2.1995 he recorded the statements of Shanmugavel, and Anbumani. On 24.2.1995 he arrested Chithiravel and remanded him to judicial custody. After completing investigation, he obtained the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and filed charge sheet under Sections,341, 323, I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x), SC/ST Act. 3. In order to bring home the offence, before the Trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.2. 4. On completion of the examination witnesses on the side of prosecution the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and he denied them as false. On the defence side, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. P.1 to P.2. 4. On completion of the examination witnesses on the side of prosecution the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and he denied them as false. On the defence side, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. On consideration of materials on record, learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur found the accused guilty under Section 294 (a) I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 341 (3 counts) I.P.C. and acquitted them of other charges. 6. Challengign the said judgment, the accused have preferred the present Appeal. 7. The point for consideration is : Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubte 8. The Point: P.W.1 is a resident of Keezhaurichi. he belongs to Hindu ‘Paraiyar‘ Community. The accused belongs to Hindu ‘Vellalar‘ Community. On 19.2.1995, P.W.1 along with Chinnadurai, (P.W.2) was proceeding in a Herohonda bike. When he was approaching near Keezhaurichi Keni bridge in the mannarkudi-Pattukottai main road, the first accused way laid them and scolded them in filthy language and assaulted them. The investigating officer has not taken any care to file Community Certificate and the investigation was done by the Inspector. 9. P.Ws.1 and 2 had spoken about the occurrence. No separate Charge was framed under Section 294 (a) also. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the accused under Section 294, I.P.C. is not correct and acceptable. Hence, at the outset, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Section 294-A is liable to be set aside. 10. Further, in this case, P.W.1 was not taken to Doctor for treatment. There is no evidence that P.W.1 sustained injuries. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Civil Right Protection Police Station. Further investigation was done by the Inspector. Investigation was not done by Deputy Superintendent of Police, as prescribed under Rule 7(1) of the Act and it vitiates the entire investigation. P.W.5 claims that he obtained the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and field charge sheet. Further investigation was done by the Inspector. Investigation was not done by Deputy Superintendent of Police, as prescribed under Rule 7(1) of the Act and it vitiates the entire investigation. P.W.5 claims that he obtained the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and field charge sheet. It is strange to know how the learned Public Prosecutor gave opinion for investigation conducted by the Inspector. This is also not proper. 11. Further, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that there was delay in filing the Complaint. The occurrence took place on 19.2.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. Complaint was lodged on 22.2.1995 and the First Information Report was dispatched on 10.3.1995 and it reached the Court on 6.11.1995. There is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution for the delay. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 12. It is clear from the evidence that the investigating officer has not taken care to act according to law. He purposely acted against the mandatory provisions of the Act, causing prejudice to the accused. Unfortunately, the Inspector retired form service. The Public Prosecutor also ought to have perused the papers properly and them only he has to give his opinion. But he has not done so. So, the opinion given by the Public Prosecutor is not proper. On consideration of all these things, I am of the considered view, that the investigation done by P.Ws. 4 and 5 was not legal. 13. For all the reason stated above, this Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 29.10.1999 rendered in S.C. No. 6 of 1998 by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is set aside.