JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Churu whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offence under Sections 341,323,325,354,504/34 Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(X)(XI) SC/ST Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2008, Smt.Teeju Devi had lodged a written report at police station, Sujangarh wherein she had claimed that she lives with her husband and father-in-law. On 04.07.2008 at about 3.00 A.M. the present petitioner, alongwith other persons, came to their house and verbally abused her and her family members. She further claimed that they threatened the family members and told them that they will he dispossessed from their land. Moreover, she claimed that the present petitioner caused injuries on her body and outraged her modesty. On the basis of the said report a formal F.I.R was registered for the aforementioned offences. Since, the petitioner could not be apprehended, the police submitted a charge-sheet against him under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered himself before the trial court on 16.05.2011. The learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that allegedly the occurrence had taken place on 03.07.2008, yet the F.I.R was not lodged till 05.07.2008 i.e. after an inordinate delay of two days. Secondly, the police had started the proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Criminal Procedure Code, in that proceedings the complainant did not reveal any fact about outraging the modesty. Thirdly, the learned counsel has vehemently contended that Section 3(1) (x) (xi) SC/ST Act, uses the words "in any place within public view". According to him, at the time when the incident takes place, the public must be present to view the incident. Since occurrence happened in the night, there was no public to view the incident. Hence, the charge for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act was unjustified. 4. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has contended that at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see the broad probabilities of the prosecution case; it is not permitted to meticulously examine the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, the charge for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act was unjustified. 4. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has contended that at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see the broad probabilities of the prosecution case; it is not permitted to meticulously examine the evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, the learned trial court could not have considered the effect of the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Moreover, it could not have gone into the alleged contradiction between the statement of the prosecutrix and the statements recorded in the proceedings under Section 107 & 151 Criminal Procedure Code Thirdly, the words "within public view" modified the words "any place". Therefore, the Act distinguishes between "a private place" and "a public place". Since, the occurrence had taken place out in the village, it had happened at a place which is subject to "public view". Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act is made out. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled position of law, that at the time of framing charge, the learned trial court cannot critically analyse the evidence produced by the prosecution and by the defence. It is concerned with the issue whether a grave possibility does exist that the offence was committed by the offender or not? If the needle of suspicion points towards the offender, the learned trial court would be justified in framing the charge. Hence, at the time of framing of the charge, the trial court cannot go into the issue as to the impact of the delay in lodging the F.I.R. This issue is required to he examined and adjudicated upon after the completion of trial. 7. Similarly the trial court cannot go into the issue as to the consequences of the alleged contradictory statement made by the prosecutrix. Obviously, the contradiction needs to be pointed out to her during the course of cross- examination. Hence, the learned Judge could not have ventured into the said issue.Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act reads as under; "intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with in any place within public view." 8. Hence, the learned Judge could not have ventured into the said issue.Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act reads as under; "intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with in any place within public view." 8. The words "in any place within public view" are cardinal to the said provision. The words "within public view" modifies the words "in any place". Thus, the place has to be in public view, and not the incident. Obviously, the Act makes a distinction between "a private place", such as within the confines of dwelling place, and "a place which would be in public view", namely, "a public place". The Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation meant to protect the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes from the oppression of the higher caste. Section 3(1) (x) of the Act tries to prevent public humiliation of a member of scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.Therefore, it uses the words "in any place in public view". Hence, it is an immaterial whether the public is present or not, as long as, the incident is alleged to have occurred in a public place. Since the Act protects the weaker section of the society, it must be applied as liberally as possible. In case, the interpretation given by the learned counsel were accepted. such an interpretation would leave a scape-route to the offenders to oppress the members of the weaker communities in a public place, but, away from public glare. Therefore, the interpretation defeats the purpose of the Act. Hence, it is unacceptable. 9. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in order dated 16.05.2011. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. *******