Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct further investigation in Crime No.38/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, on his complaint dated 20.1.2008, a case was registered for offence under Sections 294(b), 355, 323 r/w. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though the case has been registered, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the investigation found no offence under the SC/ST Act stood committed and hence he returned the investigation of the case to the Inspector of Police, the 2nd respondent herein. Thereafter, an alteration report was filed by the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2009, deleting the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, even if the petitioner had not been abused by uttering the caste name, still the charge sheet informs of the fact of his having been abused and that by itself would suffice to include the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Binoy v. State of Kerala reported in 2001 MLJ (Cri) 492 in this regard and also relied on the judgment of this Court in N.Ramu v. Superintendent of Police, Villupuram R.P.District, Villupuram and another, reported in 1998 MLJ (Cri) 132 towards informing that a further investigation could be ordered by this Court. 4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) on the above submissions. 5. There is no doubt that, mentioning of a caste name is not essential to make out commission of offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. What would suffice is that, insulting or abusive words were used against the persons so as to humiliate them as members of a caste and in a place within the public view. Given, what would amount to offence under the Act, rules have been framed so as to ensure that investigation in such cases are conducted by superior officers i.e., by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Given, what would amount to offence under the Act, rules have been framed so as to ensure that investigation in such cases are conducted by superior officers i.e., by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this case, it is not in dispute that upon registration, investigation has been put in the hands of the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has found that no offence under the Act stands attracted. 6. This Court has no reason to suspect that the investigation has been anything but fair, though it is otherwise submitted on behalf of the petitioner. The ruling of this Court in N.Ramu v. Superintendent of Police, Villupuram R.P.District, Villupuram and another, reported in 1998 MLJ (Cri) 132, has no bearing in the present case. In such case, the investigation had been done by an Inspector of Police and charge sheet was filed for offences under the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstance, it was found that there is no bar to conduct further investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police for the offence under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. In the result, this petition shall stand dismissed.