Ajai Lamba, J.;- 1. The appellant No.1 Dilip Kumar Verma, has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sl.No. Under Section Punishment Fine 1 27, Arms Act. 5 years' rigorous imprisonment Rs.10,000/-(in default of payment, 1 year's further simple imprisonment) 2 506(2), I.P.C. 5 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.10,000/-(in default of payment, 1 year's further simple imprisonment) 3 504, I.P.C. 1 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.2,500/-(in default of payment, 3 months' further simple imprisonment) 4 3(i)(x), Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.2,500/-(in default of payment, 3 months' further simple imprisonment) 2. Appellant no.2 Kuldeep Verma, has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sl.No. Under Section Punishment Fine 1 27, Arms Act. 5 years' rigorous imprisonment Rs.10,000/-(in default of payment, 1 year's further simple imprisonment) 2 506(2), I.P.C. 5 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.10,000/-(in default of payment, 1 year's further simple imprisonment) 3 504, I.P.C. 1 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.2,500/-(in default of payment, 3 months' further simple imprisonment) 4 3(1)(X), Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.2,500/-(in default of payment, 3 months' further simple imprisonment) 3. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report version, lodged at the instance of Constable Shiv Sahay, P.W.1, is that on 14.11.1995, when the said person alongwith, Home-guard Ram Bahadur Singh, P.W.2, duly armed was posted at Digiha Trisection on picket duty, at about 9.30 a.m., former M.L.A. Dilip Kumar Verma came on a Rajdoot motorcycle, armed with rifle, along with another person armed with a revolver, who was driving the motorcycle. Suddenly the said person came and said to the complainant(P.W.1, Shiv Sahay) as to why the Jeep of appellant Dilip Kumar Verma had not been allowed to be parked. The complainant, PW-1, said that it was his duty to ensure that the traffic is not jammed on the road. Dilip Kumar Verma got infuriated on this and started abusing the complainant in the name of his mother and sister and also in the name of his caste (the offending sentences on account of their dirty content are not being mentioned). On saying so, Dilip Kumar Verma put his rifle on the chest of the complainant. In the meantime, Devi Prasad Mishra, P.W.3, and Kunwar Prasad, came along with others and saved the complainant. 4. Charge-sheet was filed against appellant no. On saying so, Dilip Kumar Verma put his rifle on the chest of the complainant. In the meantime, Devi Prasad Mishra, P.W.3, and Kunwar Prasad, came along with others and saved the complainant. 4. Charge-sheet was filed against appellant no. 1, Dilip Kumar Verma for commission of offence under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(1)(X) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'S.C./S.T. Act') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas against Kuldip Verma for commission of offence under Section 307, 353, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act as also under Section 3(i)(x), S.C./S.T. Act. 5. No conclusive evidence of commission of offence under Section 307, I.P.C. was found by the trial court, therefore, both the appellants have been acquitted of the said charge. 6. During trial, complainant, who deposed as P.W.1 and the other eyewitness, a homeguard Ram Bahadur Singh who deposed as P.W.2 supported the prosecution case. Devi Prasad Mishra and Mahesh Kumar, P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively, did not support the prosecution story. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that there has been no investigation in regard to the fact that the appellant No.1 was armed with a rifle; as to whether or not the appellants had licenced weapons or not and no recovery has been affected. Learned counsel contends that in such circumstances, in the absence of any investigation in regard to misuse of firearms, conviction for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act could not have been recorded. 8. In regard to commission of offence under Section 3(1)(X), S.C./S.T. Act, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'S.C./S.T. Rules'), only an officer, not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police, duly appointed by the State Government, could investigate the case. In the case in hand, officer of such rank holding such post and duly authorized, has not investigated the case and, therefore, conviction for commission of offence under S.C./S.T. Act could not have been recorded. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in the above regards, has relied on (2010) 1 SCC (Cri.) 683, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh. 10. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in the above regards, has relied on (2010) 1 SCC (Cri.) 683, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh. 10. In regard to offences under Sections 506 and 504, Indian Penal Code, learned counsel appearing for appellants has argued that no investigation had been conducted as to whether appellant no.1 owned a jeep; whether the said appellant lived in the vicinity and whether there was any issue of parking of jeep. In this context, reference has been made to the statement of P.W.1, who admits that he had not seen jeep of appellant no.1 earlier. It has been argued that in such circumstances there was no occasion for the appellants to have insulted the complainant intentionally with intent to provoke breach of peace or to have criminally intimidated the complainant. In view of the above contentions, it has been argued that the appellants deserve acquittal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State while responding to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, has not been able to draw the attention of this Court towards any relevant investigation conducted as regards firearms allegedly wielded by the appellants. 12. So far as conviction under Section 3(1)(X), S.C./S.T. Act, is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court towards (2011) 4 SCC 402 , Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, to say that a defect or irregularity in investigation, however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial, where cognizance of a case had been taken and the case had proceeded to termination. 13. This Court has considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the statement of witnesses and other related documents from the record. 14. So far as commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, by the appellants is concerned, it is the admitted case that no investigation has been conducted to verify whether either of the appellants had licenced weapon or not. Faced with such circumstances, this court is required to consider the statements of eye witnesses on oath in court with caution. 15. Faced with such circumstances, this court is required to consider the statements of eye witnesses on oath in court with caution. 15. Having gone through the statement of P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay in Chief and in Cross Examination as also of P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statements are trustworthy. Both the witnesses withstood cross examination and have deposed clearly. The statements inspire confidence. The entire incident has been confirmed by the witnesses, even in cross examination. 16. This court has also taken into account the fact that the investigating officer was not examined. However, witnesses P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay and P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh have narrated the incident in chronological order and therefore non-examination of the investigating officer would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case. Ordinarily, examination of investigating officer is expected, however, in case of non production of the investigating officer, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is doubtful, particularly when eye witnesses have supported the prosecution version in extenso and their statements are trustworthy. 17. Absence of investigation in relevant regards under the influence of politically influential person viz appellant no.1, cannot be ruled out and therefore also this Court has considered the eye witness account with vigilance. 18. This Court has also taken into account the fact that eye witness P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were discharging official duties in a disciplined force. The officials are junior most in the police hierarchy. An incident took place in regard to which complaint was made with promptness. When called upon, the two witnesses have narrated the incident with clarity. 19. A suggestion was put to P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay, the victim, in cross examination, suggesting that a false complaint had been made because there were complaints of corruption against Shiv Sahay and also Shiv Sahay wanted a transfer through appellant no.1, who wielded the political influence. Because appellant no.1 did not oblige Shiv Sahay, P.W.-1, therefore, false complaint had been made against appellant no.1. Both the pleas could have been supported by the defence by way of documentary evidence viz a complaint for corruption or request for transfer. No such document was however, put to Shiv Sahay for confrontation. On the part of the witness P.W.1 Shiv Sahay, the said suggestions have been categorically denied. 20. Both the pleas could have been supported by the defence by way of documentary evidence viz a complaint for corruption or request for transfer. No such document was however, put to Shiv Sahay for confrontation. On the part of the witness P.W.1 Shiv Sahay, the said suggestions have been categorically denied. 20. It is not the case of the defence that Shiv Sahay made a false complaint by way of concoction of the incident on account of political rivalry. 21. The case set up by Shiv Sahay has been supported by P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh, who was serving in Homeguard and is a natural witness being posted at the place of incident. Thus, there is no doubt left as regards occurrence of the incident, as asserted by P.W.-1 and supported by P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh. 22. P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have not supported the prosecution version. In Social scenario, public witnesses becoming hostile has become a common feature. Per se this fact would not create a dent in the trustworthy version given by P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay and P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh. 23. So far as the commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act by appellant no.1 is concerned, there is a clear assertion by the two witnesses that rifle was put on the chest of P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay and Shiv Sahay was intimidated for the reason that the jeep of the appellant no.1 was not allowed to be parked. When Shiv Sahay, P.W.-1 back answered by saying that it was his duty to see that there was no jam on the road, appellant no.1 Dilip Kumar Verma became infuriated and abused the complainant Shiv Sahay not only in the name of his mother and sister but also in the name of his caste while putting rifle on the chest. The said incident was witnessed by the other witness namely Ram Bahadur Singh P.W.-2 who has supported the prosecution version. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, it stands established that Dilip Kumar Verma appellant no.1 has committed offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 24. There is no allegation against the appellant no.2 namely Kuldeep Verma to have used his revolver in the entire incident. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant no.2 has committed offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 24. There is no allegation against the appellant no.2 namely Kuldeep Verma to have used his revolver in the entire incident. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant no.2 has committed offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. To this extent, appeal of appellant no.2 namely Kuldeep Verma is accepted. The appellant no.2 Kuldeep Verma is acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 25.So far as the commission of offence under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the statements of the two witnesses namely Shiv Sahay P.W.-1 and Ram Bahadur Singh P.W.-2 are clear enough to show that the appellant no.1 intentionally insulted P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay the complainant with intent to provoke a breach of peace in a crowded public place and criminally intimidated by way of threatening Shiv Sahay with injury to his person which clearly caused alarm to the complainant for the reason that the jeep of appellant no.1 was not allowed to be parked. For the said purpose, rifle wielded by appellant no.1 was used. Appellant No.2 drove Appellant No.1 on motorcycle to the place of incident for commission of the offence and his presence has been established beyond a shadow of doubt. 26. Sequence of events as it emerges from the statement of eye witnesses P.W.-1 Shiv Sahay and P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh indicates that at the first instance, the appellants approached P.W.-2 Ram Bahadur Singh and asked as to where P.W.-1 Constable Shiv Sahay was. On pointing out of P.W.-2, the appellant no.1 while sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle which was driven by the appellant no.2 approached P.W.1 and committed the offence as alleged. In such circumstances, appellant no.2 Kuldeep also cannot be said to be innocent of charge under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. 27. So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on Chunni Lal's case ( supra). In Chunni Lal's case (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was of a chargesheet. The High Court quashed the order of framing of charge. In Chunni Lal's case (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was of a chargesheet. The High Court quashed the order of framing of charge. State of Madhya Pradesh carried an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed in part while holding thus :- "8.The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non-investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge-sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence. 9. In the present case there is no denial of the fact that the accusations related to offences both under the Act and IPC. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. The order shall be restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences punishable under IPC. 10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 28. In the considered opinion of this Court the said judgment would not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the case in hand trial has already concluded and conviction has been recorded. In Chunnilal's case, the case was at the state of framing of charge. In such circumstances, the later judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Tshering Bhutia's case (supra) would be applicable. In para 20 of the said judgment, the following has been held: "20. The issues raised herein above are no more res integra. In Chunnilal's case, the case was at the state of framing of charge. In such circumstances, the later judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Tshering Bhutia's case (supra) would be applicable. In para 20 of the said judgment, the following has been held: "20. The issues raised herein above are no more res integra. The matter of investigation by officer not authorized by law has been considered by this Court time and again and it has consistently been held that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial and, therefore, where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. The defect or irregularity in investigation has no bearing on the competence of the court or procedure relating to cognizance or trial." 29. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not even addressed the Court on the issue that miscarriage of justice has been caused by virtue of investigation by an officer not authorised under the SC & ST Act and the Rules. Rather the only argument addressed by learned counsel for appellants is to the effects above noted. In this view of the matter, taking a cue from the Ashok Tshering Bhutia's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above, it is held in the facts and circumstances of this case the defect or irregularity in the investigation would have no bearing on the competence of the court or procedure relating to cognizance or trial, as the trial has already concluded and conviction has been recorded. 30. It is also required to be noticed that the S.C./S.T. Rules were notified on 31.3.1995 and came into force on 01.4.1995. It is a Central Notification (S.C./S.T. Rules). The incident in the present case took place in November, 1995. Ordinarily it takes some time for the States to take notice of notification or Rules, whereafter appropriate directions are issued. It appears that the Rules had not even been given effect to by November, 1995 and, therefore, an officer of the Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police duly authorized, has not carried the investigation. 31. Ordinarily it takes some time for the States to take notice of notification or Rules, whereafter appropriate directions are issued. It appears that the Rules had not even been given effect to by November, 1995 and, therefore, an officer of the Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police duly authorized, has not carried the investigation. 31. Be that as it may, taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the defect or irregularity in investigation pointed out at this stage, shall not entitle the appellants to any benefit, particularly the face of eye witness account noted above. 32. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in limited terms in so much as appellant no.2 Kuldeep Verma is acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 33. The conviction and sentences of the appellant no.1 Dilip Kumar Verma for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 504 and 506 Part 2 I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (x) of the SC & ST Act are upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 34. So far as the appellant no.2 Kuldeep Verma is concerned, his appeal in challenge to conviction and sentence under Sections 504 and 506 Part 2 I.P.C. and under Section 3(i) (x) of SC & ST Act is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, are accordingly upheld.